Difference in time-course of improvement in asthma control measures between budesonide and budesonide/formoterol

Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for adult asthma (JGL) 2021

Asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation, variable airway narrowing, and sensory nerve irritation, which manifest as wheezing, dyspnea, chest tightness, and cough. Longstanding asthma may result in airway remodeling and become intractable. Despite the increased prevalence of asthma in adults, asthma-associated deaths have decreased in Japan (0.94 per 100,000 people in 2020). The goals of asthma treatment include the control of symptoms and reduction of future risks. A functional partnership between physicians and patients is indispensable for achieving these goals. Long-term management with medications and the elimination of triggers and risk factors are fundamental to asthma treatment. Asthma is managed via four steps of pharmacotherapy ("controllers"), ranging from mild to intensive treatments, depending on disease severity; each step involves daily administration of an inhaled corticosteroid, which varies from low to high dosage. Long-acting β₂ agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, sustained-release theophylline, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended as add-on drugs. Allergen immunotherapy is a new option that is employed as a controller treatment. Further, as of 2021, anti-IgE antibody, anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α-chain antibodies, and anti-IL-4 receptor α-chain antibodies are available for the treatment of severe asthma. Bronchial thermoplasty can be performed for asthma treatment, and its long-term efficacy has been reported. Algorithms for their usage have been revised. Comorbidities, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, should also be considered during the treatment of chronic asthma. Depending on the severity of episodes, inhaled short-acting β₂ agonists, systemic corticosteroids, short-acting muscarinic antagonists, oxygen therapy, and other approaches are used as needed ("relievers") during exacerbation.

Abundant TNF-LIGHT expression in the airways of patients with asthma with persistent airflow limitation: Association with nitrative and inflammatory profiles

BACKGROUND

The role of the inflammatory secretory protein TNF-LIGHT (LIGHT) in the molecular mechanisms underlying persistent airflow limitation (PAL) in asthma remains unclear. We hypothesized that high airway LIGHT expression may be a feature of asthma with PAL associated with specific expression patterns of inflammatory molecules.

METHODS

This hypothesis was tested in 16 patients with asthma on inhaled corticosteroid treatment. Induced sputum was collected, the expression of LIGHT and 3-nitrotyrosine (NT), which reflects the footprint of reactive nitrogen species content, was measured using immunohistochemical staining, and the inflammatory molecules in the sputum supernatant were analyzed using a magnetic bead array.

RESULTS

LIGHT staining in the cells had a significantly higher intensity in participants with PAL than in participants without PAL (47.9 × 10⁴/ml vs. 5.4 × 10⁴/ml; p < 0.05). The array analysis indicated that IL-8, IL-19, matrix metalloproteinase 2, and osteopontin, were associated with high LIGHT immunoreactivity. The fractionation of 3-NT-positive cells was positively correlated with that of LIGHT-positive cells (r = 0.57, p < 0.05) and the TGF-β1 level (r = 0.61, p < 0.05). LIGHT- and 3-NT-positive cells showed significant positive correlation with the differential cell counts of neutrophils, macrophages, and eosinophils in the induced sputum. Intense immunoreactivities of LIGHT (r = -0.54, p < 0.05) and 3-NT (r = -0.42, p = 0.1) were negatively associated with decreased forced expiratory volume in 1/forced vital capacity ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that LIGHT is a key component in the association between airway inflammation and airflow limitation in patients with asthma, and its expression may be persistently correlated with the abundance of inflammatory cells and inflammatory and profibrogenic radical/molecules.

Japanese guidelines for adult asthma 2020

Bronchial asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation, which manifests clinically as variable airway narrowing (wheezes and dyspnea) and cough. Long-standing asthma may induce airway remodeling and become intractable. The prevalence of asthma has increased; however, the number of patients who die from it has decreased (1.3 per 100,000 patients in 2018). The goal of asthma treatment is to control symptoms and prevent future risks. A good partnership between physicians and patients is indispensable for effective treatment. Long-term management with therapeutic agents and the elimination of the triggers and risk factors of asthma are fundamental to its treatment. Asthma is managed by four steps of pharmacotherapy, ranging from mild to intensive treatments, depending on the severity of disease; each step includes an appropriate daily dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, which may vary from low to high. Long-acting β₂-agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, sustained-release theophylline, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended as add-on drugs, while anti-immunoglobulin E antibodies and other biologics, and oral steroids are reserved for very severe and persistent asthma related to allergic reactions. Bronchial thermoplasty has recently been developed for severe, persistent asthma, but its long-term efficacy is not known. Inhaled β₂-agonists, aminophylline, corticosteroids, adrenaline, oxygen therapy, and other approaches are used as needed during acute exacerbations, by selecting treatment steps for asthma based on the severity of the exacerbations. Allergic rhinitis, eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic otitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, and pregnancy are also important conditions to be considered in asthma therapy.

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.

Fixed-Dose Combination Inhalers

In asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an important step in simplifying management and improving adherence with prescribed therapy is to reduce the dose frequency to the minimum necessary to maintain disease control. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy might enhance compliance by decreasing the number of medications and/or the number of daily doses. Furthermore, they have the potential for enhancing, sensitizing, and prolonging the effects of monocomponents. Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) is considered an important approach for treating patients with asthma and patients with severe COPD who have frequent exacerbations. Several ICS/LABA FDCs are now commercially available or will become available within the next few years for the treatment of COPD and/or asthma. Several studies demonstrate that there are a number of added benefits in using combinations of β₂-agonists and antimuscarinic agents. In particular, LABA/long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) combination seems to play an important role in optimizing bronchodilation. Several once-daily and twice-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs have been developed or are in clinical development. LAMA/ICS FDCs seem to be useful in COPD and mainly in asthma, in patients with severe asthma and persistent airflow limitation. The rationale behind the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDCs seems logical because all three agents work via different mechanisms on different targets, potentially allowing for lower doses of the individual agents to be used, accompanied by improved side effect profiles. In effect, in clinical practice, concomitant use of all three compounds is common, especially in more severe COPD but also in the treatment of adults with poorly controlled asthma despite maintenance treatment with high-dose ICS and a LABA.

Japanese guidelines for adult asthma 2017

Adult bronchial asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation, and presents clinically with variable airway narrowing (wheezes and dyspnea) and cough. Long-standing asthma induces airway remodeling, leading to intractable asthma. The number of patients with asthma has increased; however, the number of patients who die of asthma has decreased (1.2 per 100,000 patients in 2015). The goal of asthma treatment is to enable patients with asthma to attain normal pulmonary function and lead a normal life, without any symptoms. A good relationship between physicians and patients is indispensable for appropriate treatment. Long-term management by therapeutic agents and elimination of the causes and risk factors of asthma are fundamental to its treatment. Four steps in pharmacotherapy differentiate between mild and intensive treatments; each step includes an appropriate daily dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, varying from low to high levels. Long-acting β₂-agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, sustained-release theophylline, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist are recommended as add-on drugs, while anti-immunoglobulin E antibody and oral steroids are considered for the most severe and persistent asthma related to allergic reactions. Bronchial thermoplasty has recently been developed for severe, persistent asthma, but its long-term efficacy is not known. Inhaled β₂-agonists, aminophylline, corticosteroids, adrenaline, oxygen therapy, and other approaches are used as needed during acute exacerbations, by choosing treatment steps for asthma in accordance with the severity of exacerbations. Allergic rhinitis, eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic otitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aspirin-induced asthma, and pregnancy are also important issues that need to be considered in asthma therapy.

Control of asthma in real life: still a valuable goal?

Although studies show that control of asthma can be achieved in the majority of patients, surveys repeatedly show that this is not the case in real life. Important measures to implement in order to achieve asthma control are trained healthcare professionals, a good patient–doctor relationship, patient education, avoidance of exposure to triggers, personalised management and adherence to treatment. These measures help the majority of asthma patients but have not yet been widely implemented and there should be a concerted action for their implementation. Moreover, further and focused research is needed in severe/refractory asthma.

Achieving asthma control requires implementation of evidence-based guidelines and further research into severe asthmahttp://ow.ly/KzrOp

Changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over time in patients with controlled asthma at baseline

BACKGROUND

A predominant feature of asthma is an accelerated rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), but data on the variability and factors associated with this change in patients with controlled asthma are largely unknown.

METHODS

140 patients with controlled asthma were enrolled based on the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. We examined the data of a prospective analysis of the association between asthma control and change in FEV1 over time.

RESULTS

A 3-year follow-up assessment was completed in 128 patients. The mean rate of change in FEV1 was a decline of 22.2 mL yr(-1), with significant variation in the levels of change. The between patient standard deviation for the rate of decline was 34.1 mL yr(-1). We next classified the subjects of less than the 25th percentile as rapid decliners, and greater than the 25th percentile as non-rapid decliners. The decrease in the Asthma Control Test score over a 3-year period was higher for rapid decliners than that for non-rapid decliners (p < 0.001). The rapid decliner was more likely to be older, to have higher levels of FeNO, and to have had severe exacerbations during the study. Patients with severe exacerbations had a greater annual decline in FEV1 compared to patients with no exacerbations (-13.6 vs. -53.2 mL yr(-1), p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with controlled asthma at baseline, the rate of change in FEV1 is highly variable. Severe exacerbations are strongly associated with a rapid loss of lung function.

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in adults with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

For adults with asthma that is poorly controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines suggest adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA). The LABA can be taken together with ICS in a single (combination) inhaler. Improved symptom control can be assessed in the individual; however, the long-term risk of hospital admission or death requires evidence from randomised controlled trials. Clinical trials record these safety outcomes as non-fatal and fatal serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults with asthma treated with regular maintenance formoterol or salmeterol compared with placebo, or when randomly assigned in combination with regular ICS, compared with the same dose of ICS.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews on the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a June 2013 search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We carried out a search for additional trials in September 2013 and incorporated the new data. All reviews were independently assessed for inclusion and for quality (using the AMSTAR tool). We extracted from each review data from trials recruiting adults (participants older than 12 or 18 years of age).We combined the results from reviews on formoterol and salmeterol to assess the safety of twice-daily regular LABA as a class effect, both as monotherapy versus placebo and as combination therapy versus the same dose of ICS.We did not combine the results of direct and indirect comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol, or carry out a network meta-analysis, because of concerns over transitivity assumptions that posed a threat to the validity of indirect comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six high-quality, up-to-date Cochrane reviews. Of these, four reviews (89 trials with 61,366 adults) related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol as monotherapy or combination therapy. Two reviews assessed safety from trials in which adults were randomly assigned to formoterol versus salmeterol. These included three trials with 1116 participants given monotherapy (all prescribed background ICS) and 10 trials with 8498 adults receiving combination therapy. An additional search for trials in September 2013 identified five new included studies contributing data from 693 adults with asthma treated with combination formoterol/fluticasone in comparison with the same dose of inhaled fluticasone, as well as from 447 adults for whom formoterol monotherapy was compared with placebo.No trials reported separate results in adolescents. Overall, risks of bias for the primary outcomes were assessed as low. Death of any causeNone of the reviews found a significant increase in death of any cause from direct comparisons; however, none of the reviews could exclude the possibility of a two-fold increase in mortality on regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy vs placebo or as combination therapy versus ICS) in adults with asthma. Pooled mortality results from direct comparisons were as follows: formoterol monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 84.80, 13 trials, N = 4824), salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.08, 10 trials, N = 29,128), formoterol combination (OR 3.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 16.03, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.6, 35 trials, N = 13,447). In each case, we did not detect heterogeneity, and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. Absolute differences in mortality were very small, translating into an increase of 7 per 10,000 over 26 weeks on any monotherapy (95% CI 2 less to 23 more) and 3 per 10,000 over 32 weeks on any combination therapy (95% CI 3 less to 17 more).Very few deaths were reported in the combination therapy trials, and combination therapy trial designs were different from those of monotherapy trials. Therefore we could not use indirect evidence to assess whether regular combination therapy was safer than regular monotherapy.Only one death occurred in the monotherapy trials comparing formoterol versus salmeterol, so evidence was insufficient to compare mortality. Non-fatal serious adverse events of any causeDirect evidence showed that non-fatal serious adverse events were increased in adults receiving salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.14, 95% 1.01 to 1.28, I(2) = 0%,13 trials, N = 30,196) but were not significantly increased in any of the other reviews: formoterol monotherapy (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.04, I(2) = 15%, 17 trials, N = 5758), formoterol combination (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, I(2) = 0%, 35 trials, N = 13,447). This represents an absolute increase on any monotherapy of 43 per 10,000 over 26 weeks (95% CI 6 more to 85 more) and 16 per 10,000 over 32 weeks (95% CI 22 less to 60 more) on any combination therapy.Direct comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol detected no significant differences between risks of all non-fatal events in adults (as monotherapy or as combination therapy).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from the reviews of randomised trials cannot definitively rule out an increased risk of fatal serious adverse events when regular formoterol or salmeterol was added to an inhaled corticosteroid (as background or as randomly assigned treatment) in adults or adolescents with asthma.An increase in non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause was found with salmeterol monotherapy, and the same increase cannot be ruled out when formoterol or salmeterol was used in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid, although possible increases are small in absolute terms.However, if the addition of formoterol or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid is found to improve symptomatic control, it is safer to give formoterol or salmeterol in the form of a combination inhaler (as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). This prevents the substitution of LABA for an inhaled corticosteroid if symptom control is improved on LABA.The results of three large ongoing trials in adults and adolescents are awaited; these will provide more information on the safety of combination therapy under less supervised conditions and will report separate results for the adolescents included.

Comparison of the effects of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment on airway inflammation and small airway impairment in patients who need to step-up from inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy

BACKGROUND

If asthma patients fail to achieve symptom control using a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone, adding a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) is the preferred treatment. We aimed to compare the effect of two widely available ICS/LABA combinations in these patients in real-life conditions: budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM; Symbicort(®)) for maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) and a fixed dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SM).

METHODS

Inadequately controlled asthma patients treated with a medium dose of ICS alone, with an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score >0.75 and using a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) 2-6 occasions/week, were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups and treated with two inhalation twice-daily BUD/FM 160/4.5 μg plus as-needed BUD/FM (SMART group, n = 15) or one inhalation twice-daily FP/SM 250/50 μg plus as-needed procaterol (FP/SM group, n = 15) for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in airway inflammation, pulmonary functions and symptoms from baseline. The SMART group showed significant improvement in the fraction of nitric oxide, ACQ score, rescue medication use and small airway parameter R5-R20 measured by impulse oscillometry compared with the FP/SM group.

CONCLUSION

For stepping up treatment from ICS alone to an ICS/LABA combination, SMART is preferable for controlling asthma symptoms by suppressing airway inflammation and improving small airway impairment compared with a fixed dose of FP/SM. It may be achieved by the property of BUD/FM itself and as-needed use, but the degree of each contribution must be investigated further.

Ongoing allergic rhinitis impairs asthma control by enhancing the lower airway inflammation

BACKGROUND

The relationship between allergic rhinitis and asthma is well accepted; however, little is known about the mechanism that underlies the interactions between the upper and lower airways.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the symptomatic and inflammatory linkages between allergic rhinitis and asthma in patients with atopy.

METHODS

We enrolled 520 patients with asthma who were taking inhaled corticosteroids, and examined them by using the Asthma Control Questionnaire, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO), visual analog scale for nasal symptoms, allergic rhinitis questionnaire, and serum specific IgE (study 1). The symptomatic and inflammatory marker responses to nasal corticosteroids in patients with incompletely controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire > 0.75) and moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis were also observed (study 2).

RESULTS

A total of 348 patients (66.9%) had atopy and allergic rhinitis. There was a striking difference in the proportion of patients with incomplete asthma control, depending on the presence as well as the activity of rhinitis (no rhinitis, 11.0%; mild intermittent, 20.4%; moderate-to-severe intermittent, 44.6%; mild persistent, 53.1%; moderate-to-severe persistent, 65.7%). The FENO levels were increased with the activity of rhinitis, and the nasal visual analog scale was positively correlated with the FENO levels (r = 0.31; P < .0001). The additive treatment with nasal corticosteroids improved the nasal visual analog scale, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and FENO levels, and the changes in these variables were correlated with each other in all parameters (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This observational study of patients with atopy indicates that the ongoing allergic rhinitis is related to worsening of asthma by enhancing the lower airway inflammation.

Failure in asthma control: reasons and consequences

Clinical research showed that asthma control is an achievable target. However, real-life observations suggest that a significant proportion of patients suffer from symptoms and report lifestyle limitations with a considerable burden on patient's quality of life. The achievement of asthma control is the result of the interaction among different variables concerning the disease pattern and patients' and physicians' knowledge and behaviour. The failure in asthma control can be considered as the result of the complex interaction among different variables, such as the role of guidelines diffusion and implementation, some disease-related factors (i.e., the presence of common comorbidities in asthma such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), sleep disturbances and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and rhinitis) or patient-related factors (i.e., adherence to treatment, alexithymia, and coping strategies). Asthma control may be reached through a tailored treatment plan taking into account the complexity of factors that contribute to achieve and maintain this objective.

Predictors for identifying the efficacy of systemic steroids on sustained exhaled nitric oxide elevation in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Some patients with asthma have high levels of exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO) despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) therapy. Early studies suggested that this might be explained by the presence of heterogeneous airway inflammation. We aimed to assess the predictors for identifying the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids on residual FENO elevations in severe asthma.

METHODS

Twenty severe asthmatics with persistent FENO elevation (≥40ppb) despite maintenance therapy including high-daily-dose ICS were enrolled. Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), lung function, blood eosinophils, and FENO were assessed before and after 14 days treatment with 0.5mg/kg oral prednisolone/day.

RESULTS

ACQ, blood eosinophils, FENO level, FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC ratio and the slope of the single nitrogen washout curve (ΔN2) were significantly improved by treatment with prednisolone. 70% of the subjects showed ≥20% reductions in the FENO levels. The reduction in FENO levels was significantly correlated with the improvements in ACQ (p < 0.0001), FVC (p < 0.01), FEV1 (p < 0.0001), and ΔN2 (p < 0.05). Among the measurements at baseline, the FENO levels and blood eosinophil numbers were identified as significant predictors of ≥20% reductions in the FENO levels by systemic steroid therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids could suppress the residual FENO elevations in more than half of the patients with severe asthma and the reduction in FENO levels was associated with improvements in asthma control and airflow limitation. The FENO levels and blood eosinophil numbers were the predictors of improved residual airway inflammation by systemic steroid therapy in severe asthma.