Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

Differences in the effectiveness of single, dual, and triple inhaled corticosteroid therapy for reducing future risk of severe asthma exacerbation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Importance

The effectiveness of different combinations of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapies in reducing severe exacerbations of adult asthma remains unclear.

Objective

This network meta-analysis (NMA) extensively evaluated the treatment effects of single ICS; dual ICS i.e., ICS/long-acting β2-adrenergic agonists (LABA); ICS/LABA as single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART); and triple ICS, i.e., ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in preventing severe asthma exacerbations.

Data sources

A systematic search of English databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, was conducted until December 31, 2022, using PRISMA-NMA.

Study selection

Using the PICOS criteria, the questions for this study were carefully selected so that the correct keywords could be identified.

Data extraction and synthesis

A pairwise meta-analysis was used to select trials based on the criteria for minimizing heterogeneity (I2). Subsequently, the "BUGSnet" package of R software was used to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were risk rate and annualized rate ratio of severe asthma exacerbations.

Results

This review included 56 randomized control trials (RCTs; n = 78,171 patients). As the pairwise meta-analysis demonstrated that the annualized rate ratio of severe asthma exacerbation had moderate heterogeneity, we analyzed the risk rate of severe asthma exacerbation using a network meta-analysis. In terms of direct/indirect comparisons with non-ICS, single ICS, dual ICS, SMART, and triple ICS reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 34 %, 47 %, 58 %, and 57 %, respectively. SMART and triple ICS showed high effectiveness in reducing severe exacerbations.

Conclusion

AND RELEVANCE: SMART and triple ICS were ranked higher in effectiveness in reducing severe asthma exacerbations in comparison with other therapies, indicating that these are the most effective treatments for reducing the future risk of severe asthma exacerbations.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Stepwise Approach in Asthma Revisited 2023: Expert Panel Opinion of Turkish Guideline of Asthma Diagnosis and Management Group

Introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been the cornerstone of the long-term management of asthma. ICSs either alone or in combination with long-acting beta-2 agonists have been shown to be associated with favorable asthma outcomes. However, asthma control is still reported to be below expectations all around the world. Research in the last decades focusing on the use of ICS/formoterol both as maintenance and as needed (maintenance and reliever therapy approach) showed improved asthma outcomes. As a result of recent developments, Turkish Asthma Guidelines group aimed to revise asthma treatment recommendations. In general, we recommend physicians to consider the risk factors for poor asthma outcomes, patients' compliance and expectations and then to determine "a personalized treatment plan." Importantly, the use of short-acting beta-2 agonists alone as a symptom reliever in asthma patients not using regular ICS is no longer recommended. In stepwise treatment approach, we primarily recommend to use ICS-based controllers and initiate ICS as soon as possible. We define 2 different treatment tracks in stepwise approaches as maintenance and reliever therapy or fixed-dose therapy and equally recommend each track depending on the patient's risks as well as decision of physicians in a personalized manner. For both tracks, a strong recommendation was made in favor of using add-on treatments before initiating phenotype-specific treatment in step 5. A strong recommendation was also made in favor of using biologic agents and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization in severe asthma when indicated.

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.

Once-daily, single-inhaler indacaterol/mometasone versus twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone in Asian patients with inadequately controlled asthma: Post hoc pooled analysis from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies

Objective: PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies demonstrated efficacy and safety of indacaterol/mometasone (IND/MF) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SAL/FLU). This post hoc analysis of pooled data from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies evaluated efficacy and safety of IND/MF versus SAL/FLU in Asian patients with inadequately controlled asthma.Methods: Both studies were Phase III, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled that included patients with predicted pre-bronchodilator FEV₁ (PALLADIUM, ≥50%-<85%; IRIDIUM, <80%), ACQ-7 score ≥1.5. Patients treated with IND/MF high- (150/320μg) or medium-dose (150/160μg) or SAL/FLU high-dose (50/500μg) were included. Lung function, asthma control, and asthma exacerbations were evaluated.Results: In total, 323 patients (IND/MF high-dose, n = 107; IND/MF medium-dose, n = 106, SAL/FLU high-dose, n = 110) were included. IND/MF high-dose showed improvement in trough FEV₁ versus SAL/FLU high-dose at Weeks 26 (Δ, 42 mL; 95% CI, -35 to 120 mL), and 52 (Δ, 41 mL; 95% CI, -37 to 120 mL). IND/MF high-dose exhibited numerically greater improvement in ACQ-7 score versus SAL/FLU high-dose at Weeks 26 (Δ, -0.215; 95% CI, -0.385 to -0.044) and 52 (Δ, -0.176; 95% CI, -0.348 to -0.005). Improvements in trough FEV₁ and ACQ-7 score were comparable between IND/MF medium-dose and SAL/FLU high-dose. IND/MF high- and medium-dose showed reductions in moderate or severe (45%; 30%), severe (39%; 41%), and all (9%; 25%) exacerbations, respectively, versus SAL/FLU high-dose over 52 weeks. All treatments were well tolerated.Conclusions: Once-daily, single-inhaler IND/MF high-dose improved lung function with better asthma control, reduced asthma exacerbations with comparable safety versus twice-daily SAL/FLU high-dose. IND/MF medium-dose showed comparable outcomes to SAL/FLU high-dose at a reduced steroid dose.

A Current Perspective of Allergic Asthma: From Mechanisms to Management

Asthma is a result of heterogenous, complex gene-environment interactions with variable clinical phenotypes, inflammation, and remodeling. It affects more than 330 million of people worldwide throughout their educational and working lives, while exacerbations put a heavy cost/burden on productivity. Childhood asthma is characterized by a predominance of allergic sensitization and multimorbidity, while in adults polysensitization has been positively associated with asthma occurrence. Despite significant improvements in recent decades, asthma management remains challenging. Recently, a group of specialists suggested that the term "asthma" should be preferably used as a descriptive term for symptoms. Moreover, type 2 inflammation has emerged as a pivotal disease mechanism including overlapping endotypes of specific IgE production, while type 2-low asthma includes several disease endotypes. Optimal asthma control requires both appropriate pharmacological interventions, tailored to each patient, as well as trigger avoidance measures. Regular monitoring for maintenance of symptom control, preservation of lung function, and detection of treatment-related adverse effects are warranted. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and the advent of new targeted therapies for patients with difficult to control asthma offer diverse treatment options. The current review summarizes up-to-date knowledge on epidemiology, definitions, diagnosis, and current therapeutic strategies.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Reciprocal Correlations of Inflammatory and Calcium Signaling in Asthma Pathogenesis

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by airway hyperresponsiveness, which can be caused by exposure to an allergen, spasmogen, or be induced by exercise. Despite its prevalence, the exact mechanisms by which the airway becomes hyperresponsive in asthma are not fully understood. There is evidence that myosin light-chain kinase is overexpressed, with a concomitant downregulation of myosin light-chain phosphatase in the airway smooth muscle, leading to sustained contraction. Additionally, the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum ATPase may be affected by inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TNF-α, which are all associated with asthmatic airway inflammation. IL-13 and TNF-α seem to promote sodium/calcium exchanger 1 overexpression as well. Anyhow, the exact mechanisms beyond these dysregulations need to be clarified. Of note, multiple studies show an association between asthma and the ORMLD3 gene, opening new perspectives to future potential gene therapies. Currently, several treatments are available for asthma, although many of them have systemic side effects, or are not effective in patients with severe asthma. Furthering our knowledge on the molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms of asthma plays a pivotal role for the development of new and more targeted treatments for patients who cannot totally benefit from the current therapies.

Comparing LAMA with LABA and LTRA as add-on therapies in primary care asthma management

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends a stepwise approach to adjust asthma treatment to the needs of individual patients; inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the core pharmacological treatment. However, many patients remain poorly controlled, and evidence-based algorithms to decide on the best order and rationale for add-on therapies are lacking. We explore the challenges of asthma management in primary care and review outcomes from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium with long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as add-on to ICS in patients with asthma. In adults, LAMAs and LABAs provide a greater improvement in lung function than LTRAs as add-on to ICS. In children, results were positive and comparable between therapies, but data are scarce. This information could aid decision-making in primary care, supporting the use of add-on therapy to ICS to help improve lung function, control asthma symptoms and prevent exacerbations.

The Treatment of Mild and Moderate Asthma in Adults

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease that usually causes variable airway obstruction. It affects 5-10% of the German population.

METHODS

This review is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search, as well as on national and international guidelines on the treatment of mild and moderate asthma in adults.

RESULTS

The goal of treatment is to attain optimal asthma control with a minimal risk of exacerbations and mortality, loss of pulmonary function, and drug side effects. This can be achieved with a combination of pharmacotherapy and non-drug treatment including patient education, exercise, smoking cessation, and rehabilitation. Pharmacohterapy is based on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and bronchodilators. It is recommended that mild asthma should be treated only when needed, either with a fixed combination of ICS and formoterol or with short-acting bronchodilators. For moderate asthma, maintenance treatment is recommended, with an inhaled fixed combinations of ICS and long-acting beta-mimetics, possibly supplemented with longacting anticholinergic agents. Allergen immunotherapy, i.e., desensitization treatment, should be considered if the allergic component of asthma is well documented and the patient is not suffering from uncontrolled asthma. Asthma control should be monitored at regular intervals, and the treatment should be adapted accordingly.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of asthma in adults should be individually tailored, with anti-inflammatory treatment as its main component.

A Bayesian approach to assessing small-study effects in meta-analysis of a binary outcome with controlled false positive rate

Publication bias threatens meta-analysis validity. It is often assessed via the funnel plot; an asymmetric plot implies small-study effects, and publication bias is one cause of the asymmetry. Egger's regression test is a widely used tool to quantitatively assess such asymmetry. It examines the association between the observed effect sizes and their sample SEs; a strong association indicates small-study effects. However, its false positive rates may be inflated if such an association intrinsically exists even if no small-study effects appear, particularly in meta-analyses of odds ratios (ORs). Various alternatives are available to address this problem. They usually replace Egger's regression predictor or response with different measures; consequently, they are powerful only in specific cases. We propose a Bayesian approach to assessing small-study effects in meta-analyses of ORs. It controls false positive rates by using latent "true" SEs, rather than sample SEs, in the Egger-type regression to avoid the intrinsic association between ORs and their SEs. Although "true" SEs are unknown in practice, they can be modeled under the Bayesian framework. We use simulated and real data to compare various methods. When ORs are away from 1, the proposed method may have high powers with controlled false positive rates, while Egger's test has seriously inflated false positive rates; nevertheless, in other situations, some other methods may be superior. In general, the proposed method may serve as an alternative to rule out potential confounding effects caused by the intrinsic association between ORs and their SEs in the assessment of small-study effects.

Study of the beneficial role of exhaled nitric oxide in combination with GINA guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

The use of FE_NO in association with current guidelines in the treatment of asthma has not been studied thoroughly. This study aimed to evaluate the beneficial role of FE_NO in combination with GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatic children.

METHODS

It was a prospective and descriptive study. Uncontrolled asthmatic children were randomized to two groups: group 1 (followed GINA guidelines) or group 2 (followed GINA guidelines + FE_NO modification for ICS titration). The two groups were followed-up for 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients in the study was 10 ± 4 years for group 1 (n = 116) and 11 ± 5 years for group 2 (n = 108). There were 87.9% patients in group 1 and 82.4% in group 2 that had a familial allergic history. There were 58.6% of moderate asthma and 41.4% of severe asthma in group 1, versus 56.4% and 43.6% in group 2, respectively. The percentage of moderate and severe asthma was also significantly modified after 6th and 12th month versus at inclusion (43.1% and 35.3% versus 58.6%, P < 0.01 and P < 0.005; 23.2% and 12.9% versus 41.4%, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). The total daily dose of ICS in group 2 at 12th months was significantly lower than that in group 1 (3515 ± 1175 versus 4785 ± 1235 mcg; P < 0.005). The daily cost of ICS treatment in group 2 was also lower than that of group 1 (18 ± 4 versus 27 ± 3 USD; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of FE_NO in combination with GINA guidelines for ICS titration is useful in reducing the daily ICS dose and treatment cost.

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.

Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Bronchodilators Revisited

Bronchodilators remain the cornerstone of the treatment of airway disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is therefore considerable interest in understanding how to optimize the use of our existing classes of bronchodilator and in identifying novel classes of bronchodilator drugs. However, new classes of bronchodilator have proved challenging to develop because many of these have no better efficacy than existing classes of bronchodilator and often have unacceptable safety profiles. Recent research has shown that optimization of bronchodilation occurs when both arms of the autonomic nervous system are affected through antagonism of muscarinic receptors to reduce the influence of parasympathetic innervation of the lung and through stimulation of β 2-adrenoceptors (β 2-ARs) on airway smooth muscle with β 2-AR-selective agonists to mimic the sympathetic influence on the lung. This is currently achieved by use of fixed-dose combinations of inhaled long-acting β 2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists (LAMAs). Due to the distinct mechanisms of action of LAMAs and LABAs, the additive/synergistic effects of using these drug classes together has been extensively investigated. More recently, so-called "triple inhalers" containing fixed-dose combinations of both classes of bronchodilator (dual bronchodilation) and an inhaled corticosteroid in the same inhaler have been developed. Furthermore, a number of so-called "bifunctional drugs" having two different primary pharmacological actions in the same molecule are under development. This review discusses recent advancements in knowledge on bronchodilators and bifunctional drugs for the treatment of asthma and COPD. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Since our last review in 2012, there has been considerable research to identify novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, to further understand how to optimize the use of the existing classes of bronchodilator, and to better understand the role of bifunctional drugs in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

How does race and ethnicity effect the precision treatment of asthma?

Introduction

Asthma is a common condition that affects large numbers of children and adults, yet the burden of disease is not equally distributed amongst groups. In the United States, African Americans and Puerto Ricans have higher rates of asthma and its complications when compared with European Americans. However, clinical trials and genetic studies have largely focused on the latter group.

Areas covered

Here we examine what is known regarding differences in asthma treatment response by race-ethnicity. We also review existing genetic studies related to the use of asthma medications, paying special attention to studies that included substantial numbers of non-white population groups. Publicly accessible search engines of the medical literature were queried using combinations of the terms asthma, race, ethnicity, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacogenetics, as well as the names of individual asthma medication classes. The list of articles reviewed was supplemented by bibliographies and expert knowledge.

Expert opinion

A substantial and coordinated effort is still needed to both identify and validate genetic biomarkers of asthma medication response, as currently there are no clinically actionable genetic markers available for this purpose. The path to identifying such markers in non-white populations is even more formidable, since these groups are underrepresented in existing data.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta₂-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management

Introduction:

In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform^®) was conducted.

Methods:

This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.

Results:

The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusion:

In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Two Sides of the Same Coin?-Treatment of Chronic Asthma in Children and Adults

Globally, asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions that affect individuals of all ages. When poorly controlled, it negatively impacts patient's ability to enjoy life and work. At the population level, effective use of recommended strategies in children and adults can reduce symptom burden, improve quality of life and significantly reduce the risk of exacerbation, decline of lung function and asthma-related death. Inhaled corticosteroid as the initial maintenance therapy, ideally started within 2 years of symptom onset, is highly effective in both children and adults and across various degrees of asthma severity. If asthma is not controlled, the choice of subsequent add-on therapies differs between children and adults. Evidence supporting pharmacological approach to asthma management, especially for those with more severe disease, is more robust in adults compared to children. This is, in part, due to various challenges in the diagnosis of asthma, in the recruitment into clinical trials and in the lack of objective outcomes in children, especially those in the preschool age group. Nevertheless, where evidence is emerging for younger children, it seems to mirror the observations in adults. Clinicians need to develop strategies to implement guideline-based recommendations while taking into consideration individual variations in asthma clinical phenotypes, pathophysiology and treatment responses at different ages.

Pharmacological treatment of asthma in a cohort of adults during a 20-year period: results from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey I, II and III

Asthma often remains uncontrolled, despite the fact that the pharmacological treatment has undergone large changes. We studied changes in the treatment of asthma over a 20-year period and identified factors associated with the regular use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment.

Changes in the use of medication were determined in 4617 randomly selected subjects, while changes in adults with persistent asthma were analysed in 369 participants. The study compares data from three surveys in 24 centres in 11 countries.

The use of ICSs increased from 1.7% to 5.9% in the general population and the regular use of ICSs increased from 19% to 34% among persistent asthmatic subjects. The proportion of asthmatic subjects reporting asthma attacks in the last 12 months decreased, while the proportion that had seen a doctor in the last 12 months remained unchanged (42%). Subjects with asthma who had experienced attacks or had seen a doctor were more likely to use ICSs on a regular basis.

Although ICS use has increased, only one-third of subjects with persistent asthma take ICSs on a regular basis. Less than half had seen a doctor during the last year. This indicates that underuse of ICSs and lack of regular healthcare contacts remains a problem in the management of asthma.

Despite increased ICS use, only 34% of subjects with persistent asthma take ICSs on a regular basis; <50% have seen a doctor in the last year. Underuse of ICSs and lack of regular healthcare contacts remains a problem in asthma.http://ow.ly/GUZ630mZkVN

Large care gaps in primary care management of asthma: a longitudinal practice audit

OBJECTIVES

Care gaps in asthma may be highly prevalent but are poorly characterised. We sought to prospectively measure adherence to key evidence-based adult asthma practices in primary care, and predictors of these behaviours.

DESIGN

One-year prospective cohort study employing an electronic chart audit.

SETTING

Three family health teams (two academic, one community-based) in Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

884 patients (72.1% female; 46.0±17.5 years old) (4199 total visits; 4.8±4.8 visits/patient) assigned to 23 physicians (65% female; practising for 10.0±8.6 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of visits during which practitioners assessed asthma control according to symptom-based criteria. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of: patients who had asthma control assessed at least once; visits during which a controller medication was initiated or escalated; and patients who received a written asthma action plan. Behavioural predictors were established a priori and tested in a multivariable model.

RESULTS

Primary outcome: Providers assessed asthma control in 4.9% of visits and 15.4% of patients. Factors influencing assessment included clinic site (p=0.019) and presenting symptom, with providers assessing control more often during visits for asthma symptoms (35.0%) or any respiratory symptoms (18.8%) relative to other visits (1.6%) (p<0.01).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Providers escalated controller therapy in 3.3% of visits and 15.4% of patients. Factors influencing escalation included clinic site, presenting symptom and prior objective asthma diagnosis. Escalation occurred more frequently during visits for asthma symptoms (21.0%) or any respiratory symptoms (11.9%) relative to other visits (1.5%) (p<0.01) and in patients without a prior objective asthma diagnosis (3.5%) relative to those with (1.3%) (p=0.025). No asthma action plans were delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

Major gaps in evidence-based asthma practice exist in primary care. Targeted knowledge translation interventions are required to address these gaps, and can be tailored by leveraging the identified behavioural predictors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01070095; Pre-results.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Lung Deposition of the Dry Powder Fixed Combination Beclometasone Dipropionate Plus Formoterol Fumarate Using NEXThaler® Device in Healthy Subjects, Asthmatic Patients, and COPD Patients

Background: This study evaluated the lung deposition and the distribution pattern in the airways of a fixed combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol fumarate (FF) (100/6 μg) delivered as an extrafine dry powder formulation (mass median aerodynamic diameter, MMAD (μm) BDP = 1.5; FF = 1.4) through the NEXThaler^® device in healthy subjects, asthmatics, and patients with COPD.

Methods: Healthy subjects (n = 10), asthmatic patients (n = 9; 30%≤FEV₁ < 80%), and COPD patients (n = 9; FEV₁/FVC ≤70%, 30%≤FEV₁ < 50%) completed this open-label, single administration (inhalation of four actuations) parallel group study. After inhalation of ^99mTc-radiolabeled BDP/FF combination (radiolabeled BDP + unlabeled FF), the drug deposition was assessed using a gamma-scintigraphy technique. Patients' lung function was assessed.

Results: No significant difference in drug deposition was observed between the three study groups. Mean lung deposition, extrathoracic deposition, and amount exhaled ranged, respectively, between 54.9% and 56.2%, between 41.8% and 43.2%, and between 1.6% and 3.3% of BDP emitted dose (71.7 ± 2.5 μg) for the three study groups. The central to peripheral ratio (reflecting the lung distribution pattern) ranged between 1.23 and 2.02 for the three study groups, indicating a distribution of the drug throughout the airways, including periphery. The study treatment produced a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) increase over time, reaching a maximum improvement generally within 1–4 hours.

Conclusions: The fixed extrafine dry powder combination BDP/FF (100/6 μg) administered through the DPI NEXThaler^® achieved similar intrapulmonary deposition in healthy subjects, in asthmatic patients, and COPD patients (approximately 55% of emitted dose) irrespective of the underlying lung disease with a negligible amount of exhaled particles. The study showed high reliability of the device, reproducible dosing, and distribution throughout the lungs. The results supported the concept of efficient delivery of the combination to the target pulmonary regions, thanks to the extrafine formulation. FEV₁ profile confirmed a relevant pharmacodynamic effect of the product.

Investigation of the efficacy of generic and brand-name salmeterol/fluticasone combination in the management of asthma: a randomized comparative trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most chronic inflammatory disease of the airways worldwide. Combination therapy with inhaled fluticasone and salmeterol is a common practice for the long-term management of asthma. Seretide® and Fluticort plus® are two available generic and brand name products of salmeterol/fluticasone. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized comparative, clinical trial, 80 asthmatic patients were allocated to Fluticort plus® (n=40) or Seretide® (n=40) for a period of 4 weeks. Patients with mild asthma were instructed to inhale one puff each 12 hours and those with moderate asthma two puffs every 12 hours. Respiratory volumes (assessed using spirometry), quality of life (assessed using St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) and control of asthmatic symptoms (assessed using asthma control test [ACT]) were evaluated at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

ACT score improved only in the Fluticort plus® group (p=0.012) while it was not significantly changed in the Seretide® group (p=0.178). In both treatment groups, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, and total as well as subscale SGRQ scores were significantly improved by the end of the study (p<0.05). Seretide® more efficiently improved respiratory volumes and SGRQ score in comparison with Fluticort plus® (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our comparative trial indicated that generic fluticasone/salmeterol product could improve respiratory volumes, quality of life but its efficacy is lower than the brand-name product. However, Fluticort plus® improved asthma control more efficiently compared with Seretide®.

Inhibitory effects of 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxymethylphenol on asthmatic responses to ovalbumin challenge in conscious guinea pigs

This study evaluated the anti-asthmatic activities of 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxymethylphenol (DBHP) that is a potent phenolic antioxidant in edible vegetable oil. The effects of DBHP on bronchial asthma were evaluated by determining the specific airway resistance (sRaw) and tidal volume (TV) during the immediate asthmatic response (IAR) and the late-phase asthmatic response (LAR) in guinea pigs with aerosolized ovalbumin-induced asthma. Recruitment of leukocytes and the levels of biochemical inflammatory mediators were determined in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALFs), and histopathological surveys performed in lung tissues. DBHP significantly inhibited the increased sRaw and improved the decreased TV on IAR and LAR, and also inhibited recruitment of eosinophils and neutrophils into the lung, and release of biochemical inflammatory mediators such as histamine and phospholipase A2 from these infiltrated leukocytes, and improved pathological changes. However, anti-asthmatic activities of DBHP at oral doses of 12.5 to 50 mg/kg was less than those of dexamethasone (5 mg/kg, p.o.) and cromoglycate (10 mg/kg, p.o.), but more potent or similar to that of salbutamol (5 mg/kg, p.o.). These results in the present study suggest that anti-asthmatic effects of DBHP in the guinea pigs model of OVA-induced asthmatic responses principally are mediated by inhibiting the recruitments of the leukocytes and the release of biochemical inflammatory mediators from these infiltrated leukocytes.

Effect of Pregnancy on Quantitative Medication Use and Relation to Exacerbations in Asthma

BACKGROUND

The quantification of asthma medication reduction and its relation to an aggravation of asthma during pregnancy at an individual level are unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study of asthmatic pregnant women in South Korea. All of the asthma medications were ranked from 1 to 4 according to the guideline-based stepwise approach. We assessed the daily sums of the ranks of the asthma medications and their association with exacerbations during three phases based on the individual's delivery date: before, during, and after pregnancy.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 115,169 asthmatic pregnant women who gave birth between 2011 and 2013. The subjects were clustered into four groups according to the daily rank sums of their asthma medication. Asthma medications were rapidly reduced at the beginning of the pregnancy and then slowly increased after delivery. Exacerbations were more frequent in the group with higher rank-sum values than in the group with lower values. Overall exacerbations were reduced during pregnancy compared to before or after delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthmatic pregnant women tended to reduce their asthma medication use during pregnancy. This led to a greater number of exacerbations in a small part of the study population.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICSOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in β2-agonist use or evening PEFR. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICSOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue β2-agonists or asthma symptom scores. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICSSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.

Is the perceived placebo effect comparable between adults and children? A meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

A potential larger perceived placebo effect in children compared with adults could influence the detection of the treatment effect and the extrapolation of the treatment benefit from adults to children. This study aims to explore this potential difference, using a meta-epidemiological approach.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was done to identify trials included in meta-analyses evaluating a drug intervention with separate data for adults and children. The standardized mean change and the proportion of responders (binary outcomes) were used to calculate the perceived placebo effect. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to test for the difference between adults and children of the perceived placebo effect.

RESULTS

For binary outcomes, the perceived placebo effect was significantly more favorable in children compared with adults (β = 0.13; P = 0.001). Parallel group trials (β = -1.83; P < 0.001), subjective outcomes (β = -0.76; P < 0.001), and the disease type significantly influenced the perceived placebo effect.

CONCLUSION

The perceived placebo effect is different between adults and children for binary outcomes. This difference seems to be influenced by the design, the disease, and outcomes. Calibration of new studies for children should consider cautiously the placebo effect in children.

Fluticasone/formoterol association favors long-lasting decrease in bronchial reactivity to methacholine and weekly PEF variability

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) association offers a better asthma control than a higher steroid dose with short-acting beta-agonists as needed. In this study, we evaluated the effect of the association on bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability, as such parameters are positively correlated with increased asthma morbidity and exacerbations. Thirty-six adult patients with mild persistent asthma were enrolled. After a 7-day run-in, they were randomly assigned to three therapy regimens for 6 weeks: Group 1, fluticasone 125 μg + formoterol 5 μg in the same device; Group 2, fluticasone 125 μg + formoterol 12 μg as needed; Group 3, fluticasone 250 μg + formoterol 12 μg as needed. We evaluated changes induced in weekly PEF variability (measured during the entire study and 4 weeks of follow-up) and pre- and post-study PD20 methacholine (MCH). Weekly PEF variability decreased in all groups during treatment with the greatest reduction in Group 1, followed by Group 3, and finally Group 2. During the follow-up, no significant changes were detected in Group 1, whereas a trend towards an increased variability was found in Groups 2 and 3. Post-treatment PD20 MCH was significantly higher versus the pre-treatment. The increase observed in Group 1 was significantly higher compared to Groups 2 and 3 and that observed in Group 3 in respect to Group 2. The study proves that both BHR and PEF variability are influenced by ICS. This effect was greater with fluticasone/formoterol association compared to fluticasone alone with formoterol as needed even at higher steroid dose.

Understanding how long-acting β2 -adrenoceptor agonists enhance the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma - an update

In moderate-to-severe asthma, adding an inhaled long-acting β₂ -adenoceptor agonist (LABA) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) provides better disease control than simply increasing the dose of ICS. Acting on the glucocorticoid receptor (GR, gene NR3C1), ICSs promote anti-inflammatory/anti-asthma gene expression. In vitro, LABAs synergistically enhance the maximal expression of many glucocorticoid-induced genes. Other genes, including dual-specificity phosphatase 1(DUSP1) in human airways smooth muscle (ASM) and epithelial cells, are up-regulated additively by both drug classes. Synergy may also occur for LABA-induced genes, as illustrated by the bronchoprotective gene, regulator of G-protein signalling 2 (RGS2) in ASM. Such effects cannot be produced by either drug alone and may explain the therapeutic efficacy of ICS/LABA combination therapies. While the molecular basis of synergy remains unclear, mechanistic interpretations must accommodate gene-specific regulation. We explore the concept that each glucocorticoid-induced gene is an independent signal transducer optimally activated by a specific, ligand-directed, GR conformation. In addition to explaining partial agonism, this realization provides opportunities to identify novel GR ligands that exhibit gene expression bias. Translating this into improved therapeutic ratios requires consideration of GR density in target tissues and further understanding of gene function. Similarly, the ability of a LABA to interact with a glucocorticoid may be suboptimal due to low β₂ -adrenoceptor density or biased β₂ -adrenoceptor signalling. Strategies to overcome these limitations include adding-on a phosphodiesterase inhibitor and using agonists of other Gs-coupled receptors. In all cases, the rational design of ICS/LABA, and derivative, combination therapies requires functional knowledge of induced (and repressed) genes for therapeutic benefit to be maximized.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

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

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

High-dose beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate in fixed-dose combination for the treatment of asthma

The high-strength formulation of extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate (BDP/Form) 200/6 µg has been developed to step up inhaled corticosteroid treatment, without increasing the dose of the bronchodilator, in patients who are not controlled with previous therapies. Two clinical studies have evaluated efficacy of high-strength BDP/Form as compared with another high-dose fixed combination and BDP monotherapy. Overall, data show that BDP/Form 200/6 μg improves lung function and has beneficial effects on symptoms, use of rescue medication and asthma control, with an acceptable safety profile comparable with that of high-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. Therefore, BDP/Form 200/6 μg could be considered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with asthma who are not adequately controlled with high doses of inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy or medium doses of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to combination long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Maintenance treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) can relieve asthma symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but there are limited treatment options for people who do not gain control on combination LABA/ICS. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are a class of inhaled drug which have been effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now becoming available for people with asthma to take alongside their LABA/ICS inhaler.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to combination long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adults whose asthma is not well controlled by LABA/ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to January 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO trials portal, and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared LAMA as an add-on to LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS alone for adults with asthma. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), validated measures of asthma control, and serious adverse events (including mortality).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened searches and independently extracted details on risk of bias and numerical data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four double-blind, double-dummy trials comparing LAMA to placebo, including 1197 people with asthma taking combination LABA/ICS. One of the trials was designed to study glycopyrronium bromide but was withdrawn prior to enrolment, and the other three all studied tiotropium bromide (mostly 5 µg once daily via Respimat) over 48 to 52 weeks. People in the trials had a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 55% of their predicted value, indicating severe asthma.People randomised to take tiotropium add-on had fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than those continuing to take LABA/ICS alone, but the confidence intervals did not rule out no difference (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence). Over 48 weeks, 328 out of 1000 people taking their usual LABA/ICS would have to take oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation compared with 271 if they took tiotropium as well (95% CI 218 to 333 per 1000). Analyses comparing the number of exacerbations per patient in each group (rate ratio) and the time until first exacerbation (hazard ratio) were in keeping with the main result. Quality of life, as measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was no better for those taking tiotropium add-on than for those taking LABA/ICS alone when considered in light of the 0.5 minimal clinically important difference on the scale (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.20), and evidence for whether tiotropium increased or decreased serious adverse events in this population was inconsistent (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47; I(2) = 76%).Within the secondary outcomes, exacerbations requiring hospital admission were too rare to tell whether tiotropium was beneficial over LABA/ICS alone. There was high quality evidence showing benefits to lung function (trough FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC)) and potentially small benefits to asthma control. People taking tiotropium add-on were less likely to experience non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium add-on may have additional benefits over LABA/ICS alone in reducing the need for rescue oral steroids in people with severe asthma. The effect was imprecise, and there was no evidence for other LAMA preparations. Possible benefits on quality of life were negligible, and evidence for the effect on serious adverse events was inconsistent. There are likely to be small added benefits for tiotropium Respimat 5 µg daily on lung function and asthma control over LABA/ICS alone and fewer non-serious adverse events. The benefit of tiotropium add-on on the frequency of hospital admission is still unknown, despite year-long trials.Ongoing and future trials should clearly describe participants' background medications to help clinicians judge how the findings relate to stepwise care. If studies test LAMAs other than tiotropium Respimat for asthma, they should be at least six months long and use accepted and validated outcomes to allow comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between different preparations.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Clinical asthma phenotypes in the real world: opportunities and challenges

Asthma is a common, chronic and heterogeneous syndrome, affecting people of all ages, all races and both sexes. It may range from mild disease with barely noticeable symptoms, to very severe disease with constant symptoms that greatly hinder the life of the patient. Guidelines issued by various medical societies provide guidance on how to diagnose and manage asthmatic patients. It is now increasingly recognised that asthma management must be individualised, tailored not only to the severity of the disease but to the phenotypic characteristics of each patient. The aim of asthma treatment is control of asthma and the prevention of risk of exacerbations and fixed airflow limitation. Asthma control can be easily assessed clinically through simple screening tools such as the use of validated questionnaires and spirometry. The use of inflammatory biomarkers can be an alternative approach that, however, requires more time and resources. Asthma treatment involves the use of controllers, mainly inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, and relievers, mainly rapid-acting β2-agonists. Controller medications reduce airway inflammation, lead to better symptom control and reduce the risk of future exacerbations. Reliever (rescue) medications alleviate symptoms and prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Treatment must be based on a "stepwise approach" in order to achieve good control of symptoms and to minimise future risks of exacerbations. That is, less treatment for mild disease, more treatment for severe, uncontrolled disease. Once good asthma control has been achieved and maintained, treatment should be stepped down. In severe asthmatics, phenotypic characterisation becomes more clinically useful and add-on treatment such as anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibodies may be required. Despite our better understanding of asthma, there are still patients who will not respond to treatment and remain symptomatic. Dissemination of guidelines and national plans allowing early diagnosis of asthma as well as access to specialised primary and secondary care for asthmatic patients, personalised treatment and continuity of care may lead to excellence in care and controlled asthma for the majority of patients. Education of the patient in asthma is also very important, as in every chronic disease, as the patients live with the disease every day while they visit a healthcare professional a few times a year. Future planning for new treatments should focus on the needs of such severe asthma patients.

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.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), a class of drugs with proven effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are being considered as an add-on option for adults with asthma whose condition is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is important to assess the safety and efficacy of LAMA add-on as an alternative to the prolonged use of higher doses of ICS, which are known to cause undesirable side effects in some people.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of adding a LAMA to any dose of ICS versus increasing the dose of ICS, for uncontrolled asthma in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from its inception in 1995 to April 2015, imposing no restriction on language of publication. We also handsearched trial registries, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, as well as manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 weeks, in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled on ICS alone were randomised to treatment with LAMA add-on to ICS or with an increased dose of ICS. Trials were excluded if patients were taking long-acting beta2-agonists during the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the searches and extracted data from studies meeting all the inclusion criteria. We used Covidence to manage duplicate screening, data extraction and risk of bias judgements, and to form a consensus where discrepancies arose. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), effects on quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

One cross-over randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. The trial was performed in 210 patients with moderate to severe asthma and compared the use of the LAMA tiotropium bromide with double dose beclomethasone (an ICS) using a cross-over design and 14-week treatment periods.Compared with people taking a double dose of ICS, fewer people taking a LAMA add-on had an exacerbation requiring treatment with OCS (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.43) or an exacerbation resulting in emergency department admission (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77), but the confidence intervals for both outcomes did not exclude the possibility that double dose ICS was more effective. Serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation occurred in similarly low numbers of people taking each treatment, but confidence intervals were too wide to suggest that the two treatment options were equivalent.Asthma-related quality of life was similar in both treatment groups (mean difference (MD) in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.27). Those taking LAMA add-on scored slightly better on a scale measuring asthma control than those increasing their ICS dose (MD in change from baseline - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.02), although the difference was clinically small. Evidence was deemed low quality for both quality of life and asthma control.There was moderate-quality evidence that participants' trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 100 mL better when taking LAMA add-on than with increased ICS dose (MD in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one randomised trial was found, comparing tiotropium add-on to increased dose beclomethasone. Differences between the treatments were too small or imprecise to understand whether adding a LAMA to ICS is safer or more effective than increasing the dose of ICS, and there is a possibility of carry-over effects due to the study's cross-over design. LAMA add-on may lead to more improvement in lung function (FEV1) than an increased dose of ICS.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA against other treatments, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma management, and this review should be updated as results from future trials emerge. Studies assessing the role of LAMA add-on should be longer and include a double-ICS treatment arm so that the results can be interpreted in the context of the guideline-recommended treatment options that are available to physicians.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma well controlled by LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

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.

Severe asthma in children

Severe asthma in children is characterized by sustained symptoms despite treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids or oral corticosteroids. Children with severe asthma may fall into 2 categories, difficult-to-treat asthma or severe therapy-resistant asthma. Difficult-to-treat asthma is defined as poor control due to an incorrect diagnosis or comorbidities, or poor adherence due to adverse psychological or environmental factors. In contrast, treatment resistant is defined as difficult asthma despite management of these factors. It is increasingly recognized that severe asthma is a highly heterogeneous disorder associated with a number of clinical and inflammatory phenotypes that have been described in children with severe asthma. Guideline-based drug therapy of severe childhood asthma is based primarily on extrapolated data from adult studies. The recommendation is that children with severe asthma be treated with higher-dose inhaled or oral corticosteroids combined with long-acting β-agonists and other add-on therapies, such as antileukotrienes and methylxanthines. It is important to identify and address the influences that make asthma difficult to control, including reviewing the diagnosis and removing causal or aggravating factors. Better definition of the phenotypes and better targeting of therapy based upon individual patient phenotypes is likely to improve asthma treatment in the future.

Long-Term Once-Daily Tiotropium Respimat® Is Well Tolerated and Maintains Efficacy over 52 Weeks in Patients with Symptomatic Asthma in Japan: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background

This study assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat, a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator, in asthma, added on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA).

Methods

285 patients with symptomatic asthma, despite treatment with ICS±LABA, were randomised 2:2:1 to once-daily tiotropium 5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or placebo for 52 weeks (via the Respimat SoftMist inhaler) added on to ICS±LABA, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (NCT01340209). Primary objective: to describe the long-term safety profile of tiotropium. Secondary end points included: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) response; peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) response; seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) score.

Results

At Week 52, adverse-event (AE) rates with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were 88.6%, 86.8% and 89.5%, respectively. Commonly reported AEs with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were nasopharyngitis (48.2%, 44.7%, 42.1%), asthma (28.9%, 29.8%, 38.6%), decreased PEFR (15.8%, 7.9%, 21.1%), bronchitis (9.6%, 13.2%, 7.0%), pharyngitis (7.9%, 13.2%, 3.5%) and gastroenteritis (10.5%, 3.5%, 5.3%). In the tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo groups, 8.8%, 5.3% and 5.3% of patients reported drug-related AEs; 3.5%, 3.5% and 15.8% reported serious AEs. Asthma worsening was the only serious AE reported in more than one patient. At Week 52, adjusted mean trough FEV₁ and trough PEFR responses were significantly higher with tiotropium 5 μg (but not 2.5 μg) versus placebo. ACQ-7 responder rates were higher with tiotropium 5 μg and 2.5 μg versus placebo at Week 24.

Conclusions

The long-term tiotropium Respimat safety profile was comparable with that of placebo Respimat, and associated with mild to moderate, non-serious AEs in patients with symptomatic asthma despite ICS±LABA therapy. Compared with placebo, tiotropium 5 μg, but not 2.5 μg, significantly improved lung function and symptoms, supporting the long-term efficacy of the 5 μg dose.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01340209

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus theophylline for symptomatic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are widely used in combination with second controller medications in the management of asthma in adults and children. There lacks a systematic comparison between addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and theophylline to ICS. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference of the efficacy and safety profile of adding either LTRAs or theophylline to ICS in adults and children with symptomatic asthma.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to November 2014 were acquired through systematically searching and selected based on the established inclusion criteria for publications. The data extracted from the included studies were further analyzed by a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs, of which six recruited adults and two recruited children aged 5 to 14 years. The primary outcomes were changes in lung function from baseline, including forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF). Overall, addition of LTRAs led to significantly better morning PEF {mean difference (MD) 16.94 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.49-22.39] L/min, P<0.01} and FEV1 [MD 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03-0.15) L, P=0.005] as compared to addition of theophylline. There were no differences between the two treatments in terms of evening PEF, adverse events, rescue medication use and asthma exacerbation.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of LTRA and ICS leads to modestly greater improvement in lung function than the combination of theophylline and ICS in the treatment of symptomatic asthma. Long-term trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of these two therapies.

The long-acting β2 -adrenoceptor agonist, indacaterol, enhances glucocorticoid receptor-mediated transcription in human airway epithelial cells in a gene- and agonist-dependent manner

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Inhaled glucocorticoid (ICS)/long-acting β2 -adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) combination therapy is a recommended treatment option for patients with moderate/severe asthma in whom adequate control cannot be achieved by an ICS alone. Previously, we discovered that LABAs can augment dexamethasone-inducible gene expression and proposed that this effect may explain how these two drugs interact to deliver superior clinical benefit. Herein, we extended that observation by analysing, pharmacodynamically, the effect of the LABA, indacaterol, on glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-mediated gene transcription induced by seven ligands with intrinsic activity values that span the spectrum of full agonism to antagonism.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

BEAS-2B human airway epithelial cells stably transfected with a 2× glucocorticoid response element luciferase reporter were used to model gene transcription together with an analysis of several glucocorticoid-inducible genes.

KEY RESULTS

Indacaterol augmented glucocorticoid-induced reporter activation in a manner that was positively related to the intrinsic activity of the GR agonist. This effect was demonstrated by an increase in response maxima without a change in GR agonist affinity or efficacy. Indacaterol also enhanced glucocorticoid-inducible gene expression. However, the magnitude of this effect was dependent on both the GR agonist and the gene of interest.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

These data suggest that indacaterol activates a molecular rheostat, which increases the transcriptional competency of GR in an agonist- and gene-dependent manner without apparently changing the relationship between fractional GR occupancy and response. These findings provide a platform to rationally design ICS/LABA combination therapy that is based on the generation of agonist-dependent gene expression profiles in target and off-target tissues.

Clinical utility and development of the fluticasone/formoterol combination formulation (Flutiform(®)) for the treatment of asthma

Pharmacologic treatment of asthma should be done with a stepwise approach recommended in treatment guidelines. If inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone are not adequate, ICSs in combination with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) are now established and widely used as the next step in effective controller therapy. Fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations in a single device are the preferred form of delivery and improve compliance by enabling patients to get symptom relief from the LABA while receiving the anti-inflammatory benefits of ICSs. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate is one of the newest fixed-dose combinations. It has been in use in Europe in 2012, but is still under regulatory review in the US. Fluticasone is a synthetic ICS with potent anti-inflammatory effects, while formoterol is a selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation within 5-10 minutes and a 12-hour duration of action. Fluticasone/formoterol has shown superior efficacy when compared to fluticasone or formoterol alone in multiple well-designed studies. The combination has shown comparable or "noninferior" benefits in lung function, clinical symptoms, and asthma control when compared with fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently in separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol provides similar efficacy with fluticasone/salmeterol, but with more rapid symptom relief. It has been compared directly with budesonide/formoterol with comparable results. Fluticasone/formoterol is well tolerated, with no unusual or increased safety concerns versus each individual component or other available ICS/LABA combinations. Fluticasone/formoterol is the latest entry into a relatively crowded market of branded fixed-dose preparations. Upcoming generic fixed-dose combinations and once-daily agents pose significant market challenges. In clinical practice, most practitioners consider all the currently available fixed-dose preparations to be of comparable efficacy and safety.