Dose response of inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: a systematic review

A bibliometric and scientific knowledge map study of the drug therapies for asthma-related study from 1982 to 2021

Objective: Asthma drug research has been increasing yearly, and its clinical application value has increasingly attracted attention. This study aimed to analyze the development status, research hotspots, research frontiers, and future development trends of the research works on drugs for patients with asthma, especially severe asthma.

Methods: Asthma drug-related articles published between 1982 and 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database, and only articles published in English were included. CiteSpace and VOSviewer software were utilized to conduct collaborative network analysis of countries/regions, institutions, keywords, and co-citation analysis of references.

Results: A total of 3,234 asthma drug-related eligible articles were included. The United States was in a leading position, and Karolinska Institute (Sweden) was the most active institution. The most prolific journal in this field was Journal of Asthma, and the most cited journal was Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Keyword co-occurrence studies suggested that the current hotspots and frontiers were as follows: ① asthma: fully revealing the potential of existing conventional asthma drugs, determining the best drug delivery system, and indicating the best combination. To continue to explore potential targets for severe asthma or other phenotypes. Inhaled glucocorticoids and budesonide are still one of the important aspects of current asthma drug research and ② severe asthma: the research and development of new drugs, especially monoclonal antibodies including omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab to improve asthma control and drug safety, have become a research hotspot in recent years, highlighting the importance of “target” selection.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the global research hotspots and trends of the research works on drugs for patients with asthma/severe asthma. It can help scholars quickly understand the current status and hotspots of research in this field.

Safety of corticosteroids in young children with acute respiratory conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Adverse events (AEs) associated with short-term corticosteroid use for respiratory conditions in young children.

DESIGN

Systematic review of primary studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase and regulatory agencies were searched September 2014; search was updated in 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Children <6 years with acute respiratory condition, given inhaled (high-dose) or systemic corticosteroids up to 14 days.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One reviewer extracted with another reviewer verifying data. Study selection and methodological quality (McHarm scale) involved duplicate independent reviews. We extracted AEs reported by study authors and used a categorisation model by organ systems. Meta-analyses used Peto ORs (pORs) and DerSimonian Laird inverse variance method utilising Mantel-Haenszel Q statistic, with 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were conducted for respiratory condition and dose.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies (11 505 children) were included; 68 were randomised trials. Methodological quality was poor overall due to lack of assessment and inadequate reporting of AEs. Meta-analysis (six studies; n=1373) found fewer cases of vomiting comparing oral dexamethasone with prednisone (pOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; I2=0%). The mean difference in change-from-baseline height after one year between inhaled corticosteroid and placebo was 0.10 cm (two studies, n=268; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67). Results from five studies with heterogeneous interventions, comparators and measurements were not pooled; one study found a smaller mean change in height z-score with recurrent high-dose inhaled fluticasone over one year. No significant differences were found comparing systemic or inhaled corticosteroid with placebo, or between corticosteroids, for other AEs; CIs around estimates were often wide, due to small samples and few events.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that short-term high-dose inhaled or systemic corticosteroids use is not associated with an increase in AEs across organ systems. Uncertainties remain, particularly for recurrent use and growth outcomes, due to low study quality, poor reporting and imprecision.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: effects of different drugs and delivery devices on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective treatment for children with persistent asthma. Although treatment with ICS is generally considered to be safe in children, the potential adverse effects of these drugs on growth remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different inhaled corticosteroid drugs and delivery devices on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases, or contacted the manufacturer, to search for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was initially conducted in September 2014, and updated in November 2015, September 2018, and April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected parallel-group randomized controlled trials of at least three months' duration. To be included, trials had to compare linear growth between different inhaled corticosteroid molecules at equivalent doses, delivered by the same type of device, or between different devices used to deliver the same inhaled corticosteroid molecule at the same dose, in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected studies and assessed risk of bias in included studies. The data were extracted by one author and checked by another. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. We conducted meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3 software. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs ) as the metrics for treatment effects, and the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We did not perform planned subgroup analyses due to there being too few included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomized trials involving 1199 children aged from 4 to 12 years (per-protocol population: 1008), with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Two trials were from single hospitals, and the remaining four trials were multicentre studies. The duration of trials varied from six to 20 months.One trial with 23 participants compared fluticasone with beclomethasone, and showed that fluticasone given at an equivalent dose was associated with a significant greater linear growth velocity (MD 0.81 cm/year, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.16, low certainty evidence). Three trials compared fluticasone with budesonide. Fluticasone given at an equivalent dose had a less suppressive effect than budesonide on growth, as measured by change in height over a period from 20 weeks to 12 months (MD 0.97 cm, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 2 trials, 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence). However, we observed no significant difference in linear growth velocity between fluticasone and budesonide at equivalent doses (MD 0.39 cm/year, 95% CI -0.94 to 1.73; 2 trials, 236 participants; very low certainty evidence).Two trials compared inhalation devices. One trial with 212 participants revealed a comparable linear growth velocity between beclomethasone administered via hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and beclomethasone administered via chlorofluorocarbon-metered dose inhaler (CFC-MDI) at an equivalent dose (MD -0.44 cm/year, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.12; low certainty evidence). Another trial with 229 participants showed a small but statistically significant greater increase in height over a period of six months in favour of budesonide via Easyhaler, compared to budesonide given at the same dose via Turbuhaler (MD 0.37 cm, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.62; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that the drug molecule and delivery device may impact the effect size of ICS on growth in children with persistent asthma. Fluticasone at an equivalent dose seems to inhibit growth less than beclomethasone and budesonide. Easyhaler is likely to have less adverse effect on growth than Turbuhaler when used for delivery of budesonide. However, the evidence from this systematic review of head-to-head trials is not certain enough to inform the selection of inhaled corticosteroid or inhalation device for the treatment of children with persistent asthma. Further studies are needed, and pragmatic trials and real-life observational studies seem more attractive and feasible.

Managing problematic severe asthma: beyond the guidelines

This review discusses issues related to managing problematic severe asthma in children and young people. A small minority of children have genuinely severe asthma symptoms which are difficult to control. Children with genuinely severe asthma need investigations and treatments beyond those described within conventional guidelines. However, the majority of children with poor symptom control despite high-intensity treatment achieve improvement in their asthma control once attention has been paid to the basics of asthma management. Basic asthma management requires optimisation of inhaler technique and treatment adherence, avoidance of environmental triggers and self-management education. It is also important that clinicians recognise risk factors that predispose patients to asthma exacerbations and potentially life-threatening attacks. These correctable issues need to be tackled in partnership with children and young people and their families. This requires a coordinated approach between professionals across healthcare settings. Establishing appropriate infrastructure for coordinated asthma care benefits not only those with problematic severe asthma, but also the wider asthma population as similar correctable issues exist for children with asthma of all severities. Investigation and management of genuine severe asthma requires specialist multidisciplinary expertise and a systematic approach to characterising patients' asthma phenotypes and delivering individualised care. While inhaled corticosteroids continue to play a leading role in asthma therapy, new treatments on the horizon might further support phenotype-specific therapy.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Benefits and Risks of Long-Term Asthma Management in Children: Where Are We Heading?

International guidelines provide recommendations for a stepwise approach to the management of asthma in children 0-4 years old, 5-11 years old, and adolescents who are treated as adults. Therapy is aimed at two domains of control: current impairment and future risk. The long-term controller medications, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), ICSs in combination with long-acting β₂ agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and immunomodulators, exhibit different efficacies for these domains. The risk:benefit ratios of the available medications need to be carefully assessed. This review briefly presents the benefits and the potential risks of available asthma medications in children to assist the practitioner in the optimal use of asthma medications. Specifically, the systemic activity of the ICSs and how to minimize their effects on growth and adrenal activity are reviewed as well as other potential adverse effects. Dosing strategies such as intermittent therapy are also assessed.

Randomized Trial of Once-Daily Fluticasone Furoate in Children with Inadequately Controlled Asthma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dose-response, efficacy, and safety of fluticasone furoate (FF; 25 µg, 50 µg, and 100 µg), administered once daily in the evening during a 12-week treatment period to children with inadequately controlled asthma.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a Phase IIb, multicenter, stratified, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study in children aged 5-11 years with inadequately controlled asthma. The study comprised a 4-week run-in period, 12-week treatment period, and 1-week follow-up period. Children were randomized to receive either placebo once daily, fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 µg twice daily, FF 25 µg, FF 50 µg, or FF 100 µg each once daily in the evening. Primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in daily morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) averaged over weeks 1-12. Adverse events (AEs) also were investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 593 children were included in the intent-to-treat population. The difference vs placebo in change from baseline daily morning PEF averaged over weeks 1-12 was statistically significant for the FF 25, FF 50, FF 100, and FP 100 groups (18.6 L/min, 19.5 L/min, 12.5 L/min, and 14.0 L/min, respectively; P < .001 for all). The incidence of AEs was greater in the FF groups (32%-36%) than in the placebo group (29%); the most frequent AE was cough.

CONCLUSION

FF and FP resulted in significant improvements in morning PEF compared with placebo, suggesting that they are effective treatments for children with inadequately controlled asthma. All treatments were well tolerated; no new safety concerns were identified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01563029.

Intermittent inhaled corticosteroid therapy versus placebo for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

International guidelines advocate using daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma. However, in real world clinical settings, these medicines are often used at irregular intervals by patients. Recent evidence suggests that the use of intermittent ICS, with treatment initiated at the time of early symptoms, may still have benefits for reducing the severity of an asthma exacerbation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent ICS versus placebo in the management of children and adults diagnosed with, or suspected to have, symptoms of mild persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), the ClinicalTrials.gov website and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal in March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus placebo in children and adults with symptoms of persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the risk of asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, and withdrawal rates. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (representing 490 preschool children, 145 school-aged children and 240 adults) met the inclusion criteria. Study durations were 12 to 52 weeks. Results for preschool children were presented in a separate analysis as this represents a distinct clinical condition, not necessarily related to the development of long term asthma.There was a reduction in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids in older children (145 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 1.12, low quality evidence) and adults with asthma (240 participants, OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95, low quality evidence). These analyses were each based on the findings of a single study. No group difference was observed in the risk of serious adverse health events (385 participants; OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 7.25, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the placebo group, there was an insufficient number of participants to make firm conclusions whether the intermittent ICS group displayed any reduction in the rate of hospitalisations, day time and night time symptoms scores, or adverse events. Lung function tests reported by a single study favoured the use of ICS. There was no significant group difference in growth rate of children, or overall withdrawals.In preschool children with frequent wheezing episodes, the use of intermittent ICS at the onset of early symptoms reduced the likelihood of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids by half (490 participants; OR: 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73, moderate quality evidence with minimal heterogeneity). Intermittent therapy was associated with fewer serious adverse events (439 participants; OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02, low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in hospitalisations or in a single study measuring parent perceived quality of life. However, intermittent therapy was associated with improvements in both day time and night time symptoms. There was no increase in the rates of withdrawals, and overall and treatment-specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with mild persistent asthma, two studies have shown that the use of intermittent ICS at the time of exacerbation reduced the chances of needing oral corticosteroids by half. This result is statistically significant if we assume that the effect size is the same for each study population (fixed effects model), but is not statistically significant when using a random effects model. However, the paucity of published evidence limits our conclusions towards the 'as-needed' use of this medication. The small number of studies and participants were the major reasons for downgrading the overall quality of the findings. A corresponding result was found in preschool children with wheeze. In this age group, an improvement in day time and night time asthma symptoms score and parental perceived quality of life of children similarly favoured the ICS group. However, there was no statistical difference in hospitalisation rates in any group. This treatment was not associated with any significant increase in adverse events. There was no growth suppression noted with the use of intermittent ICS in either preschool or school-aged children. Considering the limited number of available studies, we emphasise the need for more randomised controlled studies in order to confirm these findings.

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.

Adrenal responses to a low-dose short synacthen test in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids are known to cause adrenal suppression. The aim of this study was to assess clinical factors affecting responses to a low dose short synacthen test (LDSST) in asthmatic children using corticosteroids.

DESIGN

Patients were recruited from secondary care paediatric asthma populations within the UK.

PATIENTS

Asthmatic children (5-18 years), receiving corticosteroids, underwent a LDSST (n = 525).

MEASUREMENTS

Demographics and corticosteroid doses were tested for association with baseline and peak (stimulated) cortisol concentrations.

RESULTS

Baseline cortisol was significantly associated with age (log baseline increased 0·04 nm per year of age, P < 0·0001), but not with gender or corticosteroid dose. Peak cortisol was significantly associated with total corticosteroid cumulative dose (decreased 0·73 nm per 200 mcg/day, P < 0·001) but not with age, gender inhaled/intranasal corticosteroid cumulative dose or number of courses of rescue corticosteroids. Biochemically impaired response (peak cortisol ≤500 nm) occurred in 37·0% (161/435) overall, including children using GINA low (200-500 mcg/day beclomethasone-CFC equivalent 32%, n = 60), medium (501-1000 mcg/day (33%, n = 57) and high (>1000 mcg/day 40%, n = 13) doses of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) similarly, and 36·6% of those using fluticasone ICS ≥500 mcg/day (71/194). Impaired response was more frequent in patients on regular oral corticosteroids (66%, n = 27, P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Children with asthma can develop biochemical adrenal suppression at similar frequencies for all ICS preparations and doses. The clinical consequence of biochemical suppression needs further study.

Principal findings of systematic reviews for chronic treatment in childhood asthma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the principal findings pertaining to most effective long-term pharmacologic treatment of childhood asthma.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (SRCTs) on pharmacologic chronic treatment in children (1-18 years) with persistent asthma were retrieved through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and CDSR (up to January2014).

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three SRCTs were searched from databases. Among those, 39 SRCTs were included: two were related to step 1, 24 to step 2, nine to steps 3 and 4, and four to step 5 (according with NAEPP and GINA guidelines). The methodological quality of these SRCTs was determined by using the AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

For step 1: addition of ipatropium bromide to short-acting beta2-agonists does not show any benefit. For step 2: in preschoolers, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) reduce severe exacerbations and improve other clinical and lung function parameters. In children, ICSs are superior to leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), cromones, or xantines in reducing severe exacerbations, improving lung function and other clinical outcomes. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is better than beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) or budesonide only for lung function; but similar to hydrofluoroalkane-BDP or to ciclosenide. Compared to low ICSs doses, moderate doses result in only better lung function, but this is not true for FP. For steps 3 and 4: adding LTRA to ICS confers a small benefit; adding LABA improves lung function but does not reduce exacerbations more than double or higher ICS doses. For step 5: adding omalizumab decreases exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

SRCTs are useful for guiding decisions in chronic childhood asthma treatment.

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: on-demand or continuous use

Continuous inhaled corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in children and adults with mild persistent asthma, although some therapeutic benefits are not lost if treatment is delayed. Many patients do not adhere to continuous treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, but rather take them intermittently, usually at the time of increased symptoms. Based on these observations it has been proposed that for patients with mild persistent asthma inhaled corticosteroids should be used on-demand when symptoms are troublesome, rather than on a continuous basis. The article reviews the pharmacological properties of inhaled corticosteroids used in clinical trials of on-demand treatment, as well as the evidence for the efficacy and safety of on-demand compared with continuous inhaled corticosteroid treatment of mild persistent asthma in adults and children. The place of on-demand treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in the management of asthma is discussed, as well as future directions for different management strategies for this group.

Inhaled corticosteroids in lung diseases

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to their broad antiinflammatory effects. They improve lung function, symptoms, and quality of life and reduce exacerbations in both conditions but do not alter the progression of disease. They decrease mortality in asthma but not COPD. The available ICSs vary in their therapeutic index and potency. Although ICSs are used in all age groups, younger and smaller children may be at a greater risk for adverse systemic effects because they can receive higher mg/kg doses of ICSs compared with older children. Most of the benefit from ICSs occurs in the low to medium dose range. Minimal additional improvement is seen with higher doses, although some patients may benefit from higher doses. Although ICSs are the preferred agents for managing persistent asthma in all ages, their benefit in COPD is more controversial. When used appropriately, ICSs have few adverse events at low to medium doses, but risk increases with high-dose ICSs. Although several new drugs are being developed and evaluated, it is unlikely that any of these new medications will replace ICSs as the preferred initial long-term controller therapy for asthma, but more effective initial controller therapy could be developed for COPD.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Clinical study results.org were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.

[Mild asthma in children: new data and a revival of interest]

According to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classification, mild asthma includes intermittent and mild persistent asthma. It represents more than 75% of asthmatic children. The symptoms and functional impact are well described. Mild asthma can lead to severe exacerbations. Progression to more severe disease may occur. Consequently, it is important to diagnose mild asthma, to initiate the appropriate treatment early, and to identify the risk factors for aggravation. Nevertheless, mild asthma is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Bronchial inflammation and remodeling are observed in mild asthma. A daily low-dose of inhaled corticosteroids is the reference treatment for mild persistent asthma. Intermittent inhaled corticosteroids cannot be recommended in children with mild persistent asthma.

International consensus on (ICON) pediatric asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic lower respiratory disease in childhood throughout the world. Several guidelines and/or consensus documents are available to support medical decisions on pediatric asthma. Although there is no doubt that the use of common systematic approaches for management can considerably improve outcomes, dissemination and implementation of these are still major challenges. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), recently formed by the EAACI, AAAAI, ACAAI, and WAO, has decided to propose an International Consensus on (ICON) Pediatric Asthma. The purpose of this document is to highlight the key messages that are common to many of the existing guidelines, while critically reviewing and commenting on any differences, thus providing a concise reference. The principles of pediatric asthma management are generally accepted. Overall, the treatment goal is disease control. To achieve this, patients and their parents should be educated to optimally manage the disease, in collaboration with healthcare professionals. Identification and avoidance of triggers is also of significant importance. Assessment and monitoring should be performed regularly to re-evaluate and fine-tune treatment. Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment. The optimal use of medication can, in most cases, help patients control symptoms and reduce the risk for future morbidity. The management of exacerbations is a major consideration, independent of chronic treatment. There is a trend toward considering phenotype-specific treatment choices; however, this goal has not yet been achieved.

Advances in pediatric asthma in 2011: moving forward

Last year's "Advances in pediatric asthma" concluded with the following statement: "Perhaps new directions in personalized medicine and improved health care access and communication will help maintain steady progress in alleviating the burden of this disease in children, especially young children." This year's summary will focus on recent advances in pediatric asthma that show significant accomplishments in reducing asthma morbidity and mortality over the last 10 years and discuss some pathways to further reduce asthma burden, as indicated in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology publications in 2011. Some of the recent reports continue to shed light on methods to improve asthma management through steps to reduce asthma exacerbations, identify features of the disease in early childhood, alter asthma progression, intervene with nutrition, and more effectively implement the asthma guidelines. As new information evolves, it is also time to consider a revision of the asthma guidelines based on key studies that affect our management of the disease since the last revision in 2007. Now is also the time to use information recorded in electronic medical records to develop innovative disease management plans that will track asthma over time and enable timely decisions on interventions to maintain control that can lead to disease remission and prevention.

Corticosteroids in respiratory diseases in children

We review recent advances in the use of corticosteroids (CS) in pediatric lung disease. CS are frequently used, systemically or by inhalation. Their mechanisms of action in pulmonary diseases are ill defined. CS exert direct inhibitory effects on many inflammatory cells through genomic mechanisms. There is a time lag before clinical response, and the washout of effects is also prolonged. Prompt relief in some conditions, such as croup, may be related to airway mucosal vasoconstriction through a nongenomic mechanism. CS have proven beneficial roles in the treatment of asthma, croup, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and subglottic hemangioma. In some conditions, such as bronchiolitis, cystic fibrosis, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, their use is controversial and is not recommended routinely. In other conditions, such as tuberculosis, interstitial lung disease, acute lung aspiration, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, CS are often used empirically despite the lack of clear evidence of their benefit. New drug regimens, including the more flexible use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists in asthma, the lack of efficacy of oral corticosteroids in preschool children with acute wheeze, the severe complications of systemic dexamethasone used to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and thus more restricted use, and the beneficial effect of pulse high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or cystic fibrosis are among the major recent developments. There is concern about adverse effects, especially growth and adrenal suppression, induced by systemic CS in children. These have been reduced, but not eliminated, with the use of the inhaled route. The benefits must be weighed against the potential detrimental effects.

Stepping down asthma treatment: how and when

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines suggest that asthma medication should be reduced once asthma control is sustained. Moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can typically be reduced, but questions remain about the lowest effective ICS dose and the role of non-ICS controllers in treatment reduction. Long-acting beta agonist (LABA) safety concerns have created controversy about how to step down patients on ICS/LABA therapy. This review will focus on the current status of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intermittent ICS treatment, often in fixed combination with short-acting beta agonist, is an emerging strategy for control of mild asthma. Addition of leukotriene modifiers, LABAs, and omalizumab to ICS can allow for reduced ICS dosing. Doses of ICS that control symptoms may be inadequate to control exacerbations. Reducing ICS dose before discontinuing LABAs may be the more effective approach for patients on combination therapy.

SUMMARY

Use of non-ICS controllers allows for ICS dose reduction with superior outcomes. Tapering of ICS prior to LABA discontinuation may be the favored approach for patients on ICS/LABA therapy, but an understanding of long-term outcomes and further safety data are required. The lowest ICS dose that adequately controls both asthma impairment and risk remains to be determined.

Apoptosis and the airway epithelium

The airway epithelium functions as a barrier and front line of host defense in the lung. Apoptosis or programmed cell death can be elicited in the epithelium as a response to viral infection, exposure to allergen or to environmental toxins, or to drugs. While apoptosis can be induced via activation of death receptors on the cell surface or by disruption of mitochondrial polarity, epithelial cells compared to inflammatory cells are more resistant to apoptotic stimuli. This paper focuses on the response of airway epithelium to apoptosis in the normal state, apoptosis as a potential regulator of the number and types of epithelial cells in the airway, and the contribution of epithelial cell apoptosis in important airways diseases.

Updates on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the newer inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) ciclesonide with older ICSs in terms of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and how these affect comparative efficacy. In addition, clinical dosing strategies for ICSs including as-needed use will be explored.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ciclesonide has demonstrated similar efficacy to that of fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate in equipotent doses with a potentially improved therapeutic index. Once-daily administration of ICSs is generally not as effective as twice-daily. Continuous administration of ICSs does not change the natural history of asthma in either children or adults. Long-term administration of medium dose ICSs does not increase the risk of cataracts or osteopenia in children and young adults. Studies of as-needed ICSs in mild persistent asthma in adults and children have demonstrated mixed results, with some showing equal efficacy to continuous therapy and others showing superiority of continuous therapy.

SUMMARY

Ciclesonide provides a newer ICS with favorable pharmacokinetics that may improve the therapeutic index, but assessment of its systemic effects such as growth await further studies. Continuous administration of ICSs in low to medium dose over many years is well tolerated. The use of as-needed ICSs in patients with mild persistent asthma is promising as a potential step-down therapy but awaits further studies.

Steroid responsiveness and wheezing phenotypes

Oral corticosteroids are the cornerstone of management of acute moderate or severe asthma whilst preventive inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of the preventive management of children with asthma. Yet, variation in the magnitude of response to corticosteroids has been observed. There is increasing evidence that preschool-aged children with viral-induced asthma may display a certain degree of corticosteroid resistance, requiring higher doses of corticosteroids to overcome it. The identification of determinants of responsiveness is complicated by design issues, including heterogeneous populations of children with asthma and bronchiolitis or of children with viral-induced and multi-trigger asthma phenotypes in published trials. Potential key determinants of responsiveness may include age, trigger, phenotype, tobacco smoke exposure and genotype. The mechanistic pathway for corticoresistance may originate from a gene-environment interaction, leading to non-eosinophilic airway inflammation. The clinician should carefully confirm the diagnosis of asthma and ascertain the phenotype to select appropriate phenotype-specific therapy.

Comparison of Inhaled Corticosteroids: What You Need to Know in Choosing a Product

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended by The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Expert Panel Report 3 for all levels of persistent asthma in the pediatric population. The recommended ICS doses are based on assessment of severity and control of asthma. The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the current ICSs are reviewed. While comparable efficacy can be achieved with equipotent dosing, some of the newer ICSs, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and ciclesonide, have pharmacokinetic profiles that produce less risk of systemic effects. However, at high doses systemic activity increases with all ICSs. The clinicians need to weigh the benefits and risks of these different products and dosing schemes in their patients for optimal use.

Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: double for nothing?

Two recent trials from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's asthma clinical trials networks raise a concern about using double the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a positive control arm in clinical trials of add-on therapy. The literature evaluating the response to doubling the dose of an ICS is briefly reviewed. The vast majority of studies do not demonstrate a significant positive benefit from doubling the dose of an ICS but do show improvement with 4-fold increases that is equal to or greater than that of add-on long-acting bronchodilators. It is recommended that doubling the dose of an ICS no longer be considered a positive comparator arm in clinical trials, although it might be beneficial in individual patients.