A randomized, double-blind trial of the effect of anti-asthma treatment on lung function in children with asthma

Efficacy and safety of inhalation budesonide in the treatment of pediatric asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed to evaluate the beneficial role of inhalation budesonide(BUD) in improving the pulmonary functions, and reducing the hospital admission rate, worsening of asthma and commonly encountered adverse events in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

The electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google scholar databases to identify the randomized control trials(RCTs).

RESULTS

21 RCTs involving 12,787 subjects were included. The meta-analysis revealed that the BUD has reduced the hospitalization rate (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H), random effects odd ratio (RE-OR) of 0.34, p = 0.003, I² = 75%), and worsening of asthma (M-H, RE-OR 0.38, p = 0.001, I² = 73%); significantly improved the pulmonary functions such as FEV1 (Inverse variance (IV): 1.05, p < 0.0001, I² = 94%), PEFR (IV: 1.40, p < 0.0001, I² = 87%), morning PEF (IV: 1.04, p < 0.0001, I² = 91%), and evening PEF (IV: 1.29, p < 0.0001, I² = 92%) compared to control. Further, the incidences of adverse events like Pharyngitis (M-H, RE-OR 0.88, at 95% CI, p = 0.69, I² = 0%), Sinusitis (M-H, RE-OR 0.78, p = 0.79, I² = 0%), Respiratory infections (M-H, RE-OR 0.96, p = 0.46, I² = 0%), Otitis media (M-H, RE-OR 0.82, p = 0.32, I² = 12%) and Fever (M-H, RE-OR 0.78, p = 0.64, I² = 0%) were almost same between BUD and control.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of the meta-analysis suggest that high-dose inhalation BUD could benefit the pediatric patients in minimizing the worsening of asthma and hospitalization rate, along with improving the pulmonary functions, with negligible adverse drug reactions.

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.

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.

Longitudinal trends in clinical characteristics and lung function of patients with severe asthma under treatment in Brazil

BACKGROUND

The structural changes of the respiratory system related to ageing determine lung function decline in healthy subjects after 25 years of age. An annual reduction of 25 ml in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1) is expected. We aimed to describe the longitudinal lung function variation of subjects with severe asthma receiving appropriate treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients enrolled in a Brazilian reference clinic between 2003 and 2006 were invited to participate. The study participants were followed up for a median of 8 years, and were evaluated with spirometry in three distinct occasions (V0, V1 and V8), at least. At V0, upon enrollment, subjects with previous severe untreated asthma were evaluated by a specialist, had their health resource utilization in the last 12 months recorded, and performed spirometry. In V1, 1 year after V0, under proper management, subjects repeated the procedures and answered the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). In the last study visit (V8), 7 years after V1, all patients underwent a pre and post-broncodilator (postBD) spirometry, skin prick test for aeroallergens, answered the ACQ and the AQLQ and had another interview with the specialist.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four subjects were followed up between V0 and V8. A comparison between spirometries of V1 and V8, after the initial improvement has supposedly reached a plateau, shows that the FEV₁ and FVC declined significantly both in absolute and percent of predicted values. FEV_1postBD did not change significantly between V0 and V1, but declined by -27.1 (-51.1-1.4) ml/yr between V1 and V8.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available treatment with a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA may not be sufficient to prevent lung function decline in subjects with severe asthma.

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.

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists versus placebo in the treatment of asthma in adults and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are recommended as an alternative treatment in patients with mild asthma, but their effect compared with placebo is unclear.

PURPOSE

To determine the benefits and harms of LTRAs as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids compared with placebo in adults and adolescents with asthma.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through June 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Peer-reviewed, English-language, randomized, controlled trials in patients with asthma that reported the effect of LTRAs versus placebo on measures of asthma control.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three researchers extracted data on study population, interventions, outcome measures, and adverse events. One researcher assessed risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 2008 abstracts that were screened, 50 trials met eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses of 6 trials of LTRA monotherapy showed that LTRAs reduced the risk for an exacerbation (summary risk ratio [RR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.81]). In 4 trials of LTRAs as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids, the summary RR for exacerbation was 0.80 (CI, 0.60 to 1.07). Leukotriene-receptor antagonists either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids increased FEV1, whereas FEV1 percentage of predicted values was improved only in trials of LTRA monotherapy. Adverse event rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups.

LIMITATION

Variation in definitions and reporting of outcomes, high risk of bias in some studies, heterogeneity of findings, possible selective outcome reporting bias, and inability to assess the effect of asthma severity on summary estimates.

CONCLUSION

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists as monotherapy improved asthma control compared with placebo, but which patients are most likely to respond to treatment with LTRAs remains unclear.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Effectiveness of drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations and increase symptom-free days in asthmatic children: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (≤18 years) of ≥4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome.

RESULTS

Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12,010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium- or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium- or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01266772.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an anti-leukotriene agent to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of anti-leukotriene agents and ICS to the use of the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS in children and adolescents with persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite the use of maintenance ICS. In addition, we wished to determine the characteristics of people or treatments, if any, that influenced the magnitude of response attributable to the addition of anti-leukotrienes.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), which were derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL; and the handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts, as well as the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. The search was conducted until January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children and adolescents, aged one to 18 years, with asthma, who remained symptomatic despite the use of a stable maintenance dose of ICS and in whom anti-leukotrienes were added to the ICS if they were compared to the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Five paediatric (parallel group or cross-over) trials met the inclusion criteria. We considered two (40%) trials to be at a low risk of bias. Four published trials, representing 559 children (aged ≥ six years) and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma, contributed data to the review. No trial enrolled preschoolers. All trials used montelukast as the anti-leukotriene agent administered for between four and 16 weeks. Three trials evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS compared to the same dose of ICS alone (step 3 versus step 2). No statistically significant group difference was observed in the only trial reporting participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over four weeks (N = 268 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.91). There was also no statistically significant difference in percentage change in FEV₁ (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) with mean difference (MD) 1.3 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.69) in this trial, but a significant group difference was observed in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR): N = 218 participants; MD 9.70 L/min (95% CI 1.27 to 18.13) and MD 10.70 (95% CI 2.41 to 18.99), respectively. One trial compared the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS to a higher-dose of ICS (step 3 versus step 3). No significant group difference was observed in this trial for participants with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over 16 weeks (N = 182 participants; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.25), nor was there any significant difference in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. There was no statistically significant group difference in withdrawals overall or because of any cause with either protocol. No trial explored the impact of adding anti-leukotrienes as a means to taper the dose of ICS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of anti-leukotrienes to ICS is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids or hospital admission compared to the same or an increased dose of ICS in children and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma. Although anti-leukotrienes have been licensed for use in children for over 10 years, the paucity of paediatric trials, the absence of data on preschoolers, and the variability in the reporting of relevant clinical outcomes considerably limit firm conclusions. At present, there is no firm evidence to support the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to ICS as a step-3 option in the therapeutic arsenal for children with uncontrolled asthma symptoms on low-dose ICS.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists for small-airway abnormalities in asthmatics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Airway inflammation that occurs in asthma is mainly distributed in the small airways. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are systemically active drugs that may act on the small airways.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of LTRAs for small-airway abnormalities in asthmatics.

METHODS

We searched the databases of Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from the time of the establishment of the databases to December 2012. The data were extracted using a pooled mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies were included. The outcomes were the conventional parameters for the detection of small-airway abnormalities. Eight studies were included. The outcomes were the conventional parameters for the detection of small-airway abnormalities. LTRAs compared to placebo improved small-airway abnormalities, as indicated by a number of radiological and physiological parameters, such as lung attenuation (MD, 61.00; 95% CI, 26.32 to 95.68) and residual volume (SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.42). Conventional inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) compared to LTRAs improved small-airway abnormalities, as indicated by the reactance area (p = 0.028). Compared with conventional treatment alone, a combination of LTRAs and conventional treatment improved small-airway abnormalities, as indicated by a number of radiological and physiological parameters, such as airway wall thickness (p < 0.05), alveolar nitric oxide concentration (p = 0.04), a decrease in resistance from 5 to 20 hertz (p = 0.032), reactance area (p = 0.014), eosinophil cationic protein levels (p = 0.045) and number of eosinophils (p = 0.035) in the late-phase induced sputum. However, there was no significant improvement in forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity in any of the comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

LTRAs may improve most of the conventional parameters for the detection of small-airway abnormalities in asthmatics. However, there is no evidence of the superiority of LTRAs over ICSs in improving functional parameters related to the small airways.

Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Effects of add-on montelukast on airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with well-controlled asthma - a pilot study

Objective

Control of airway inflammation is the cornerstone of asthma management. The aim of the present pilot study was to assess the effects of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) added to a basic treatment of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) on airway hyperresponsiveness, inflammation, and quality of life in well-controlled patients with asthma.

Research design and methods

Seventeen patients (age 18–65, 11 women) with well-controlled asthma presenting airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol and methacholine challenge were given add-on montelukast on a stable ICS + LABA for 4 weeks. Quality of life and selected parameters of airway inflammation were measured at baseline and at study end. (ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01725360)).

Results

Adding montelukast to ICS + LABA resulted in an increase in mean FEV₁ (+4.5%, p = 0.057), cumulated higher dose of mannitol (+32.5%, p = 0.023) and methacholine (+17.2%, 0.237) in the provocation test, lower airway reactivity with mannitol and methacholine (response dose ratio (RDR) –50.0%, p = 0.024 and –44.3%, p = 0.006, respectively), and improved airway sensitivity to mannitol and methacholine (+12.1%, p = 0.590 and +48.0%, p = 0.129 for PD15 and PD20 FEV₁, respectively). Changes in inflammation parameters (blood eosinophil count, serum eosinophil cationic protein, and exhaled nitric oxide) were consistent with these findings. Asthma-related quality of life improved significantly in all domains and overall (from 5.3 at baseline to 6.1 at the final visit, p < 0.001). The main limitation was the absence of a control group.

Conclusion

The consistency of the changes in airway hyperresponsiveness and inflammation as well as in quality of life observed with an add-on therapy with montelukast in well-controlled asthma patients during 4 weeks suggests that residual inflammation may represent an area for further improvement of asthma control to be explored in adequately powered randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four

Background

The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.

Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness.

Methods

Systematic review with network meta-analysis. After a comprehensive search in Central, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO search portal two reviewers selected RCTs performed in 4,129 children from 5-18 year old, with moderate persistent asthma comparing any GINA step 3&4 medication options. Further quality was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and data-extracted included papers and built a network of the trials. Attempt at ranking treatments with formal statistical methods employing direct and indirect (e.g. through placebo) connections between all treatments.

Results

8,175 references were screened; 23 randomized trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head (n=17) or against placebo (n=10), met the inclusion criteria. Except for theophylline as add-on therapy in step 4, a closed network allowed all comparisons to be made, either directly or indirectly. Huge variation in, and incomplete reporting of, outcome measurements across RCTs precluded assessment of relative efficacies.

Conclusion

Evidence-based ranking of effectiveness of drug treatments in GINA steps 3&4 is not possible yet. Existing initiatives for harmonization of outcome measurements in asthma trials need urgent implementation.

Montelukast versus inhaled corticosteroids in the management of pediatric mild persistent asthma

International guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as the preferred therapy, with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative, for the management of persistent asthma in children. Montelukast (MLK) is the first LTRA approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the use in young asthmatic children.Therefore, we performed an analysis of studies that compared the efficacy of MLK versus ICSs. We considered eligible for the inclusion randomized, controlled trials on pediatric populations with Jadad score > 3, with at least 4 weeks of treatment with MLK compared with ICS.Although it is important to recognize that ICSs use is currently the recommended first-line treatment for asthmatic children, MLK can have consistent benefits in controlling asthmatic symptoms and may be an alternative in children unable to use ICSs or suffering from poor growth. On the contrary, low pulmonary function and/or high allergic inflammatory markers require the corticosteroid use.

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV(1) (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 

Effects of cysteinyl-leukotriene receptors' antagonism by montelukast on lung mechanics and olfactory system histology in healthy mice

CONTEXT

At variance with steroid administration, the possible effects of leukotrienes inhibition on basal respiratory mechanics and olfactory system function are still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if interference with the leukotrienes activity may influence basal lung mechanics in healthy mammals, as well as the olfactory system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We measured lung mechanics by the end-inflation occlusion method in control and in montelukast i.p. treated anaesthetised healthy mice (10 mg/kg/die for a week). A study of olfactory system histology was also conducted.

RESULTS

Elastance and resistive properties of the lung were not affected by montelukast, while a significant increment of lung hysteresis was observed. The analysis of olfactory system histology revealed no significant effects of montelukast compared to controls.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Leukotrienes' antagonism does not affect respiratory mechanics in basal conditions, except for a hysteresis increment, which might counteract the increase in expiratory flow in asthmatic subjects assuming montelukast.

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

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta(2)-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.

Montelukast in the treatment of asthma and beyond

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting over 300 million people worldwide. The common association with allergic rhinitis and the presence of proinflammatory cells and mediators in the circulation of patients qualify asthma as a systemic disease. This characteristic and the fact that the gold-standard therapy for persistent asthma, inhaled corticosteroids, cannot suppress all components of airway inflammation and fail to adequately penetrate into the small airways, warrant the quest for effective systemic anti-asthma therapies. This review describes the most important controlled studies of montelukast, a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, in asthma and allergic rhinitis in both adults and children. Montelukast is a systemically active drug with a targeted, dual mechanism of action, acting both as a bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory. In patients of all ages, montelukast has shown a favorable safety profile and was well-tolerated. Both as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, montelukast produced clinically relevant improvements in asthma-related parameters, including symptoms, lung function parameters, quality of life and the number of asthma exacerbations. Furthermore, bronchoprotective effects have been reported both against specific and nonspecific bronchoactive stimuli. Similarly, in patients with allergic rhinitis, montelukast produced substantial improvements in symptoms and quality of life. Long-term studies aimed to determine its effects on airway remodeling are still lacking.

Effect of inhaled steroid and montelukast on clinical symptoms in children with newly diagnosed asthma: a pilot study

There is a lack of evidence for treatment of newly diagnosed asthma, and they are based mainly on expert opinion. This pilot study was aimed at evaluating the effects of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in two different doses and montelukast sodium on clinical symptoms and lung function in children with newly diagnosed asthma. This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-month pilot trial, studying the effects of budesonide 800 mcg/day and 400 mcg/day and montelukast 5 or 10 mg tablet according to age on clinical symptoms and lung function in 60 children with newly diagnosed asthma. After 6 months of treatment with different doses of inhaled budesonide and montelukast sodium, asthma control and lung function significantly improved in all three groups of treatment; there were no differences between groups. We found significant correlation between time of enrollment and individual answer to the treatment in montelukast group only; children enrolled later (at the end of heating season) responded better to treatment. The answer to both ICS doses was independent from time of enrollment. The results of the present pilot study suggest that natural exposure, even to perennial allergens, should be considered in choosing the initial asthma treatment. We showed that montelukast may be used as initial asthma therapy in children allergic to house-dust mites preferably at the end of the heating season. Therefore, ICS could be a better choice as initial asthma therapy during maximum allergen exposure.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

Add-on montelukast to inhaled corticosteroids protects against excessive airway narrowing

RATIONALE

Excessive airway narrowing in response to broncho-active stimuli is a predictor for severe exacerbations in asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have complementary properties to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on asthma control.

OBJECTIVES

The LTRA montelukast may provide an additional protection against excessive airway narrowing. We tested the add-on effects of montelukast on the maximal response plateau and PD(20) to inhaled methacholine in asthmatics on a stable dose of ICS.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients with allergic asthma [14M/17F, 19-50 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) >70% pred., PD(20) <3.9 micromol methacholine], with a twice documented response plateau to methacholine, were randomized in a double-blind (montelukast 10 mg or matching placebo once daily), 12-week parallel study. Bronchoprovocation tests with methacholine (0.03-256 micromol or > or =40% decline in FEV(1)) were repeated every 4 weeks and after wash-out. The main study objectives were changes from baseline in maximal FEV(1) decline at the response plateau (i.e. >2 post-dose FEV(1) values within 5%) and PD(20) to methacholine after 12 weeks' treatment.

RESULTS

Neither treatment affected baseline FEV(1) (P=0.62). Compared with placebo, montelukast significantly decreased the maximal response plateau to methacholine (mean difference 9.4%; 95% confidence interval 3.9-15.7; P<0.005), improved the FEV(1) decline (mean change in FEV(1) decline was 2.1% [montelukast] and -0.8% [placebo], respectively, P<0.05), and increased PD(20) methacholine (mean change in PD(20) of 5.3 [montelukast] and 1.4 [placebo] doubling doses, respectively, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Add-on montelukast to ICS has disease-modifying effects in adults with persistent asthma, and hence reduces the risk of excessive airway narrowing (NCT 00913328).

[When and how to modify the management of asthma in children over the age of 4]

The treatment of asthma in children should not be fixed but rather must be regularly adapted to keep the condition under control defined according to clinical and functional criteria. In a child whose asthma is controlled, a step down in therapy should be carried out every 3 to 6 months to achieve the minimal effective level of treatment. In a child whose asthma appears not to be controlled, it is necessary initially to evaluate compliance with therapy and to seek aggravating factors which may include allergic rhinitis, multiple sensitisation, tobacco exposure, psychological factors, obesity, gastro- oesophageal reflux and infection. Where control of asthma is poor the main therapeutic strategy rests on an increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid and on the addition of other anti-asthmatic treatments--inhaled long--acting beta 2 agonists and oral leukotriene antagonists.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in asthmatic children: a comparative systematic review of the available treatment options

The aim of this article is to critically review the efficacy and safety data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), long- or short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs, SABAs), parasympatholytics and oral leukotriene receptor antagonists in the management of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children with persistent asthma (EIA). The studies with sufficient information on patient characteristics and outcomes were chosen using a MEDLINE search. Results from the individual searches were combined and repeated. Studies were also found by reviewing the reference lists of the articles not included in this review. Studies focusing solely on individuals with asthma and other allergic co-morbidities (i.e. a degree of bronchial reversibility) were considered in this review. To make the paper evidence-based, the design and the quality of different studies were assessed employing the Sign criteria (evidence level [EL] and grades of recommendation [GR]). No additional statistical analyses were performed. Most of studies included paediatric patients with underlying EIA. We need to distinguish children with recurrent asthma symptoms in whom EIB is also present (patients with EIA) from asthmatic subjects whose symptoms appear only as a result of exercise (patients with EIB). Further controller treatment is indicated in patients with EIA and further reliever treatment in patients with EIB. ICSs are the first-choice controller drugs for EIA in children with persistent asthma (Sign grade of recommendation [GR]:A). In children with EIA without complete control with ICSs, SABAs (GR:A), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) [GR:A] or LABAs (GR:A) may be added to gain control. Treatment with relievers such as SABAs (GR:A), parasympatholytics (GR:B) or, eventually, LABAs (GR:A), administered 10-15 minutes before exercise is the most preferable method of preventing EIB symptoms in children; however, not as monotherapy in children with EIA. The disadvantages and controversy relating to inhaled beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist use lie in the development of tolerance to their effect when they are used on a regular basis, and the possibility of a resulting underuse of ICSs in patients with EIA. Researchers and guidelines recommend that if any patient requires treatment with a beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist more than twice weekly, a low dose of ICSs should be administered. Inhaled parasympatholytics may be effective as preventive relievers in some children with EIB or EIA, especially among those with increased vagal activity. LTRAs have a well balanced efficacy-safety profile in preventing the occurrence of EIB symptoms in children. Compared with LABAs, LTRAs produce persistent attenuation of EIB and possess an additional effect with rescue SABA therapy in persistent asthmatic patients with EIA. A disadvantage of LTRAs is a non-response phenomenon. There are still insufficient data on the efficacy-safety profiles of ICS/LABA combination drugs in the treatment of EIA in children to recommend this treatment without caution. Safety profiles of inhaled SABAs, anticholinergics and montelukast in approved dosages seem sufficient enough to recommend use of these drugs in the prevention of EIB symptoms in children. Many researchers agree that treatment of EIA in children should always be individualized.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

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 was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

[Involvement of distal airways in asthma: lessons from pediatric cohorts]

INTRODUCTION

Prospective studies of paediatric cohorts contribute to our knowledge of changes in pulmonary function in children with asthma.

STATE OF THE ART

Asthma is associated with a significant impairment of the distal airways which is more pronounced when asthma has started early, before 5 years of age, or when asthma is persistent. In utero exposure to tobacco smoke allergenic sensitization and persistent bronchial hyperresponsiveness are the main factors associated with an unfavourable respiratory function outcome. This impairment may persist despite the disappearance of symptoms. Distal airway alterations are also poorly responsive to conventional inhaled corticosteroid therapy. This could be due to early remodelling phenomenon or non-optimal deposition of the drugs on distal airways.

PERSPECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS

The medium and long term clinical implications of distal airway involvement in paediatric asthma and the impact of treatment need to be evaluated.

Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)].Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Asthma in childhood

Management decisions for pediatric asthma (in patients younger than 12 years of age) based on extrapolation from available evidence in adolescents and adults (age 12 years and older) is common but rarely appropriate. This article addresses the disparity in response between the two age groups, presents the available pediatric evidence, and highlights the important areas in which further research is required. Evidence-based recommendations for acute and interval management of pediatric asthma are provided.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Patients who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) agents may both be considered as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in asthmatic patients who remained symptomatic on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was searched for randomised controlled trials up to and including March 2006. Reference lists of all included studies and reviews were screened to identify potentially relevant citations. Inquiries regarding other published or unpublished studies supported by the authors of the included studies or pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these agents were made. Conference proceedings of major respiratory meetings were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma where a LABA (for example, salmeterol or formoterol) or LTRA (for example, montelukast, pranlukast, zafirlukast) was added to ICS for a minimum of 28 days were considered for inclusion. Inhaled short-acting beta(2)-agonists and short courses of oral steroids were permitted as rescue medications. Other daily asthma treatments were permitted, providing the dose remained constant during the intervention period. Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature searches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and trial quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Whenever possible, primary study authors were requested to confirm methodology and data extraction and to provide additional information and clarification when needed. Where necessary, expansion of graphic reproductions and estimation from other data presented in the paper was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria; eleven trials including 6,030 participants provided data in sufficient detail to permit aggregation. All eleven trials pertained to adults with moderate airway obstruction (% predicted FEV(1) 66-76%) at baseline. Montelukast (n=9) or Zafirlukast (n=2) was compared to Salmeterol (n=9) or Formoterol (n=2) as add-on therapy to 400-565 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent. Risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was significantly lower with LABA+ICS when compared to LTRA+ICS (RR= 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 0.71, 0.97): the number needed to treat with LABA compared to LTRA, to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks, was 38 (95% CI: 23 to 247). The following outcomes also improved significantly with the addition of LABA compared to LTRA to inhaled steroids (Weighted Mean Difference; 95%CI): morning PEFR (16 L/min; 13 to 18), evening PEFR (12 L/min; 9 to 15), FEV(1) (80 mL; 60 to 100), rescue-free days (9%; 5% to 13%), symptom-free days (6%; 2 to 11), rescue beta(2)-agonists (-0.5 puffs/day; -0.2 to -1), quality of life (0.1; 0.05 to 0.2), symptom score (Standard Mean Difference -0.2; -0.1 to -0.3), night awakenings (-0.1/week; -0.06 to -0.2) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.12; 1.07 to 1.16). Risk of withdrawals due to any reason was significantly lower with LABA+ICS compared to LTRA+ICS (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95). Withdrawals due to adverse events or due to poor asthma control, hospitalisation, osteopenia, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, headache or cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two study groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In asthmatic adults inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids, the addition of LABA is superior to LTRA for preventing exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, and for improving lung function, symptoms, and the use of rescue beta(2)-agonists.