Management of Asthma in School age Children On Therapy (MASCOT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study of efficacy and safety

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment.

METHODS

Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists and Risk of Neuropsychiatric Entities: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are commonly prescribed to patients with allergic diseases. Several case reports and pharmacovigilance studies have indicated that LTRAs might increase the risk of neuropsychiatric (NP) entities. However, the results are mixed in observational studies. Thus, the association between LTRAs and NP entities remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitatively evaluate the NP risk with LTRAs based on current observational studies to provide a reference for clinical practice.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PsycINFO. A meta-analysis of observational studies that investigated the association between LTRA use and the risk of NP entities was performed. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure the effect; heterogeneity was evaluated using I-squared (I²) statistics. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess bias.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included in the primary analysis. No significant association was found between LTRA use and NP entities (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.24, I² = 93.7%). In patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), a mildly increased NP risk was found (OR: 1.099, 95% CI: 1.004-1.202). The association between LTRA use and NP entities was not significant in patients with asthma (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.26). LTRAs increased the risk of NP entities in a single study using data from an asthma clinic (OR: 9.00, 95% CI: 1.20-69.50), but not in studies from databases (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.93-1.23).

CONCLUSION

At the population level, LTRAs and NP entities were unrelated. However, the association may exist in particular groups (eg, patients with AR or NP history). Subject-specific studies are required to further examine the relationship between LTRAs and NP entities and identify the underlying mechanisms.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

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.

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with montelukast alone (or add-on therapy to fluticasone) in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model (I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible.

RESULTS

Of the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF)%pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC.

CONCLUSIONS

SFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019133156.

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases

Background

In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine.

Methods

Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published.

Results

The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm.

Conclusions

We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

EstablishINg the best STEp-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite INhaled corticosteroids (EINSTEIN): protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data (IPD)

INTRODUCTION

Asthma affects millions of children worldwide-1.1 million children in the UK. Asthma symptoms cannot be cured but can be controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the majority of individuals. Treatment with a low-dose ICS, however, fails to control asthma symptoms in around 10%-15% of children and this places the individual at increased risk for an asthma attack. At present, there is no clear preferred treatment option for a child whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose ICS and international guidelines currently recommend at least three treatment options. Herein, we propose a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) aiming to synthesise all available published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to establish the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma on ICS and help to make evidence-informed treatment choices. This will be used to parameterise a Markov-based economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options in order to inform decisions in the context of drug formularies and clinical guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, NICE Technology Appraisals and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment series for RCTs of interventions in patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS. All studies where children and adolescents were eligible for inclusion will be considered, and authors or sponsors will be contacted to request IPD on patients aged <18. The reference lists of existing clinical guidelines, along with included studies and relevant reviews, will be checked to identify further relevant studies. Unpublished studies will be located by searching across a range of clinical trial registries, including internal trial registers for pharmaceutical companies. All studies will be appraised for inclusion against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. We will perform an IPD-NMA-eventually supplemented with aggregate data for the RCTs without IPD-to establish both the probability that a treatment is best and the probability that a particular treatment is most likely to be effective for a specific profile of the patient. The IPD-NMA will be performed for each outcome variable within a Bayesian framework, using the WinBUGS software. Also, potential patient-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects will be explored, which represents one of the strengths of this study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Committee on Research Ethics, University of Liverpool, has confirmed that ethics review is not required. The dissemination plan consists of publishing the results in an open-access medical journal, a plain-language summary available for parents and children, dissemination via local, national and international meetings and conferences and the press offices of our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). A synopsis of results will be disseminated to NICE and British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) as highly relevant to future clinical guideline updates.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019127599.

Adverse drug reactions of leukotriene receptor antagonists in children with asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic condition of childhood. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are included in international guidelines for children and young people (CYP), but there have been highly publicised concerns about potential adverse effects. The aim was to identify and understand the reported frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) attributed to LTRAs in CYP with asthma.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to October 2020. Reference lists of eligible papers were manually screened. Eligible studies identified adverse events attributed to an LTRA in individuals aged between 0 and 18 years diagnosed with asthma. Four different tools were used to assess risk of bias or quality of data to accommodate the papers assessed.

RESULTS

The search identified 427 papers after deduplication; 15 were included (7 case reports, 7 case-controlled or cohort studies and 1 randomised control trial (RCT)). 7012 patients were recorded, of which 6853 received an LTRA. 13 papers examined the ADRs attributed to montelukast, one to pranlukast and one to unspecified LTRAs. After language standardisation, 48 ADRs were found, 20 of which were psychiatric disorders. Across all studies, the most commonly reported ADRs were 'anxiety', 'sleep disorders' and 'mood disorders'. The frequency of ADRs could be calculated in seven of the eight studies. Applying standardised frequency terms to the prospective studies and RCT, there were 14 'common' and 'uncommon' ADRs. 'Common' ADRs included 'agitation/hyperactivity/irritability/nervousness', 'aggression' and 'headache'. The case reports showed a similar pattern, describing 46 different ADRs experienced by a total of eight patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LTRAs have a wide range of suspected ADRs in CYP, predominantly gastrointestinal and neuropsychiatric disorders. Careful monitoring of CYP with asthma is required, both to assess and manage ADRs and to step treatment down when clinically stable.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020209627.

Disagreement between guidelines regarding the third step of asthma drug therapy for school-age children

With the help of a routine clinical case, we highlighted the difference between two of the best asthma guidelines available at the time regarding therapeutic suggestions for the so-called "third step" for school-age asthmatic children. We have analyzed the scientific evidence that each of the two guidelines brings to support their position. Finally, we have motivatedly solved the clinical scenario. However, the question of disagreement between two guidelines remains unresolved. This can lead to unjustified differences in the management of schoolchildren with persistent asthma.

Comparison between the health-related quality of life of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers, comparing the two.

Methods:

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, with a strategy of searching five health-related databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, SciELO, and LILACS). We included studies that evaluated the HRQoL of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers with the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver’s Quality of Life Questionnaire, respectively, using the total scores and the scores on the domains activity limitation, symptoms (children/adolescents only), and emotional function.

Results:

We identified 291 articles, and we evaluated 133 of those. A total of 33 articles, collectively including 4,101 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. An analysis stratified by study design showed no differences between the HRQoL of the caregivers and that of the children/adolescents in the activity limitation domain and in the total score. However, the mean emotional function domain scores were significantly higher (better) among children/adolescents with asthma than among their caregivers in longitudinal studies-Δ = 0.82 (0.21-1.44)-and randomized clinical trials-Δ = 0.52 (0.29-0.79)-although not in cross-sectional studies-Δ = −0.20 (−0.03 to 0.43).

Conclusions:

The total HRQoL scores proved to be similar between children/adolescents with asthma and their caregivers. However, the two groups differed in their perception of their emotional function, the caregivers scoring significantly lower than the children/adolescents in that domain.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment.

PURPOSE

To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference.

METHODS

Database searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child).

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted.

CONCLUSIONS

Families often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety of the combination fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol in asthmatic preschoolers: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma management in pediatric patients. However, in some cases, asthma is not adequately controlled on ICS alone. Long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are one of the available additional therapies but their use has rarely been studied among children younger than 5 years.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SA) in asthmatic children younger than 5 years of age.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 796 children under the age of 5 years (2.87 ± 1.22 years, 64.2% males), who were treated with FP/SA was conducted. Hospitalization rates, frequency of wheezing, exercise induced asthma, nocturnal wheeze and drug-related side-effects were recorded through children's medical records.

RESULTS

The children had previously received short-acting β₂-agonists (73%), ICS (17%), montelukast (1%), and ICS with montelukast (2%). Mean duration of therapy with FP/SA was 12.45 ± 9.14 months. After adjusting for age, gender, and duration of treatment, a 89% reduction was recorded in annual hospitalization rates (from 27.13% before treatment to 3.01% after FP/SA therapy, p < 0.001), a 71% reduction in incidence of exercise-induced asthma (36.8% vs. after 10.6%, p < 0.001), a 81% reduction in nocturnal asthma (33.7% vs. after: 6.4%, p < 0.001), as well as in frequency of wheezing (p < 0.01),. No previous treatment carry-on effect was observed. No major drug-related side-effects occurred in the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy (FP/SA) is well-tolerated and highly effective in asthmatic children under the age of 5 years.

Comparative Effectiveness of Step-up Therapies in Children with Asthma Prescribed Inhaled Corticosteroids: A Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In children with uncontrolled asthma prescribed low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), various step-up options are available: fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (FDC), increasing ICS dose, or adding leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). However, evidence of their relative effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of step-up treatment to FDC in children with asthma versus increased ICS dose, or LTRA.

METHODS

This matched cohort study used UK primary-care databases to study children prescribed their first step-up treatment to FDC, increased ICS dose, or LTRA. A year of baseline data was used for matching and identifying confounders. Outcomes over the following year were examined. The primary outcome was severe exacerbation rate; secondary outcomes included overall asthma control, derived from databases (no asthma-related admissions/hospital attendances/oral corticosteroids or antibiotics prescribed with a respiratory review, and average prescribed salbutamol ≤200 μg/day).

RESULTS

There were 971 matched pairs in the FDC and increased ICS dose cohorts (59% males; mean age, 9.4 years) and 785 in the FDC and LTRA cohorts (60% males; mean age, 9.0 years). Exacerbation rates in the outcome year were similar between FDC and increased ICS (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.09 [0.75-1.59]) and FDC and LTRA (incidence rate ratio, 1.36 [0.93-2.01]). Increased ICS and LTRA significantly reduced the odds of achieving overall asthma control, compared with FDC (odds ratios [95% CI], 0.52 [0.42-0.64] and 0.53 [0.42-0.66], respectively)-this was driven by reduced short-acting beta-agonist use.

CONCLUSIONS

FDC is as effective as increased ICS or LTRA in reducing severe exacerbation rate, but more effective in achieving asthma control.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Small-particle Inhaled Corticosteroid as First-line or Step-up Controller Therapy in Childhood Asthma

BACKGROUND

Because randomized controlled trials of established pediatric asthma therapies are expensive and difficult to perform, observational studies may fill gaps in the evidence base.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of representative small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with that of standard size-particle ICS for children initiating or stepping up ICS therapy for asthma (analysis 1) and to compare the effectiveness of ICS dose step-up using small-particle ICS with adding long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) to the ICS (analysis 2).

METHODS

These historical matched cohort analyses drew on electronic medical records of children with asthma aged 5 to 11 years. Variables measured during 2 consecutive years (1 baseline year for confounder definition and 1 outcome year) included risk-domain asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, acute oral corticosteroids, or lower respiratory tract infection requiring antibiotics) and rate of severe exacerbations (asthma-related emergency, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroids).

RESULTS

In the initiation population (n = 797 in each cohort), children prescribed small-particle ICS versus standard size-particle ICS experienced greater odds of asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02) and lower severe exacerbation rate (adjusted rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88). Step-up outcomes (n = 206 in each cohort) were also significantly better for small-particle ICS, with asthma control adjusted odds ratio of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.23-4.03) and exacerbations adjusted rate ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.89). The number needed to treat with small-particle ICS to achieve 1 additional child with asthma control was 17 (95% CI, 9-107) for the initiation population and 5 (95% CI, 3-78) for the step-up population. Outcomes were not significantly different for stepped-up small-particle ICS dose versus ICS/LABA combination (n = 185 in each cohort).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating or stepping up the ICS dose with small-particle ICS rather than with standard size-particle ICS is more effective and shows similar effectiveness to add-on LABA in childhood asthma.

Do children with stable asthma benefit from addition of montelukast to inhaled corticosteroids: randomized, placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To determine the effects of montelukast added to maintenance inhaled steroids (ICS) therapy during the school year in children with stable asthma on the ICS use, frequency of exacerbations, lung function, asthma symptoms, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) level and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

METHODS

Seventy six asthmatic children aged 6-14 years, allergic to house dust mites were randomized to a double-blinded trial comparing montelukast therapy to a matching placebo. We studied following end-points: the reduction in the ICS dose, the frequency of exacerbations, lung function, asthma control test score, and the change from baseline in FEV1 during a standardized exercise treadmill challenge. ICS dose was adjusted in a stepwise fashion to determine the lowest dose necessary to control asthma symptoms.

RESULTS

We showed that children with baseline value of FeNO above 31 ppb and well controlled asthma symptoms on low doses of ICS, benefit the most from additive therapy with montelukast; their cumulative ICS dose is lower than in children treated with ICS only. Also, the addition of montelukast to regular treatment in asthmatic children resulted in a significant reduction in the frequency of exacerbations and EIB protection.

CONCLUSION

It is reasonable to add montelukast to ICS therapy in asthmatic children during the school year, to lower cumulative ICS dose in children with well controlled asthma symptoms, as well as to reduce number of exacerbations, and to achieve better control of EIB.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01266772.

Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents

Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of montelukast in asthma. What are the conclusions from clinical trials and meta-analyses?

Asthma is a common childhood atopic disease associated with chronicity and impaired quality of life. As there is no cure for this disease, treatment relies on avoidance of triggers such as food and aeroallergens, the use of inhaled bronchodilators/corticosteroids and antiallergic or immunomodulating therapies. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and bronchodilators have been the mainstay. However, in Asia, myths and fallacies regarding Western medicine and corticosteroids are prevalent and lead to nonadherence to treatment. Also, use of traditional and proprietary herbal medicines is popular. In the past decades, a novel class of nonsteroidal immunomodulating montelukasts has become available. This article reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and clinical efficacy of these medications. A number of randomized and controlled trials have been performed over the years. The majority of studies confirm the usefulness of montelukast as monotherapy and add-on therapy to ICS in mild to moderate childhood asthma across all age groups. ICSs are generally superior to montelukasts for asthma management. However, montelukast has a place in the treatment of young children with viral-triggered wheezing diseases, exercise-induced asthma, and in children whose parents are steroid-phobic and find ICS unacceptable.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.