Effectiveness and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in controlling acute asthma attacks in children who were treated in the emergency department: a controlled comparative study with oral prednisolone

Nebulized budesonide combined with systemic corticosteroid vs systemic corticosteroid alone in acute severe asthma managed in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The additive benefit of inhaled corticosteroid when used with systemic corticosteroid in acute asthma is still unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of high and repeated doses of inhaled budesonide when combined with the standard treatment of adult acute asthma.

Methods

It was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study performed in the emergency department (ED) from May 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04016220). Fifty patients were included and were randomized to receive intravenous hydrocortisone hemisuccinate in association with nebulized budesonide (n = 23, budesonide group) or normal saline (n = 27, control group). Nebulization of budesonide or saline was done in combination with 5 mg of terbutaline every 20 min the first hour, then at 2 h (H2), and 3 h (H3). All patients received standard treatment. Efficacy and safety of inhaled budesonide were evaluated every 30 min for 180 min.

Results

A significant increase in peak expiratory flow (PEF) was observed in both treatment groups at evaluation times. The increase in PEF persisted significantly compared to the previous measurement in both groups. There was no significant difference in the PEF between the two groups at evaluation times. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the evolution in the respiratory rate and heart rate. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the rate of hospitalization, the discharge criteria before the end of the protocol.

Conclusions

Considering its limited power, our study suggests that the association of nebulized budesonide with hydrocortisone hemisuccinate has no additional effect over the use of hydrocortisone alone in adults’ acute asthma managed in the ED.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00691-9.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations, or 'attacks', during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans sometimes advocate a short-term increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at the first sign of an exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of ICS as part of a patient-initiated action plan for the home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and handsearched abstracts to 20 December 2021. We also searched major trial registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated people with persistent asthma to take a blinded inhaler in the event of an exacerbation which either increased their daily dose of ICS or kept it stable (placebo).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We reassessed risk of bias for all studies at the result level using the revised risk of bias tool for RCTs (Risk of Bias 2), and employed the GRADE approach to assess our confidence in the synthesised effect estimates. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue oral steroids in the randomised population. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure in the subset who initiated the study inhaler (treated population), unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, serious and non-serious adverse events, and duration of exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added a new study that increased the number of people in the primary analysis from 1520 to 1774, and incorporates the most up-to-date methods to assess the likely impact of bias within the meta-analyses. The updated review now includes nine RCTs (1923 participants; seven parallel and two cross-over) conducted in Europe, North America, and Australasia and published between 1998 and 2018. Five studies evaluated adult populations (n = 1247; ≥ 15 years), and four studies evaluated child or adolescent populations (n = 676; < 15 years). All study participants had mild to moderate asthma. Studies varied in the dose of maintenance ICS, age, fold increase of ICS in the event of an exacerbation, criteria for initiating the study inhaler, and allowed medications. Approximately 50% of randomised participants initiated the study inhaler (range 23% to 100%), and the included studies reported treatment failure in a variety of ways, meaning assumptions were required to permit the combining of data. Participants randomised to increase their ICS dose at the first signs of an exacerbation had similar odds of needing rescue oral corticosteroids to those randomised to a placebo inhaler (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25; 8 studies; 1774 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We could draw no firm conclusions from subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, baseline dose, smoking history, and fold increase of ICS on the primary outcome. Results for the same outcome in the subset of participants who initiated the study inhaler were unchanged from the previous version, which provides a different point estimate with very low confidence due to heterogeneity, imprecision, and risk of bias (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; 7 studies; 766 participants; I2 = 42%; random-effects model). Confidence was reduced due to risk of bias and assumptions that had to be made to include study data in the intention-to-treat and treated-population analyses. Sensitivity analyses that tested the impact of assumptions made for synthesis and to exclude cross-over studies, studies at overall high risk of bias, and those with commercial funding did not change our conclusions. Pooled effects for unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, and duration of exacerbation made it very difficult to determine where the true effect may lie, and confidence was reduced by risk of bias. Point estimates for both serious and non-serious adverse events favoured keeping ICS stable, but imprecision and risk of bias due to missing data and outcome measurement and reporting reduced our confidence in the effects (serious adverse events: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; 2 studies; 394 participants; I² = 0%; non-serious adverse events: OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; 2 studies; 142 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from double-blind trials of adults and children with mild to moderate asthma suggests there is unlikely to be an important reduction in the need for oral steroids from increasing a patient's ICS dose at the first sign of an exacerbation. Other clinically important benefits and potential harms of increased doses of ICS compared with keeping the dose stable cannot be ruled out due to wide confidence intervals, risk of bias in the trials, and assumptions that had to be made for synthesis. Included studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 reflect evolving clinical practice and study methods, and the data do not support thorough investigation of effect modifiers such as baseline dose, fold increase, asthma severity and timing. The review does not include recent evidence from pragmatic, unblinded studies showing benefits of larger dose increases in those with poorly controlled asthma. A systematic review is warranted to examine the differences between the blinded and unblinded trials using robust methods for assessing risk of bias to present the most complete view of the evidence for decision makers.

Application of aerosol therapy in respiratory diseases in children: A Saudi expert consensus

The Saudi Pediatric Pulmonology Association (SPPA) is a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society (STS), which consists of a group of Saudi experts with well-respected academic and clinical backgrounds in the fields of asthma and other respiratory diseases. The SPPA Expert Panel realized the need to draw up a clear, simple to understand, and easy to use guidance regarding the application of different aerosol therapies in respiratory diseases in children, due to the high prevalence and high economic burden of these diseases in Saudi Arabia. This statement was developed based on the available literature, new evidence, and experts' practice to come up with such consensuses about the usage of different aerosol therapies for the management of respiratory diseases in children (asthma and nonasthma) in different patient settings, including outpatient, emergency room, intensive care unit, and inpatient settings. For this purpose, SPPA has initiated and formed a national committee which consists of experts from concerned specialties (pediatric pulmonology, pediatric emergency, clinical pharmacology, pediatric respiratory therapy, as well as pediatric and neonatal intensive care). These committee members are from different healthcare sectors in Saudi Arabia (Ministry of Health, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Education, and private healthcare sector). In addition to that, this committee is representing different regions in Saudi Arabia (Eastern, Central, and Western region). The subject was divided into several topics which were then assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies without central literature review. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the whole panel.

Intravenous methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone combined with inhaled budesonide in acute severe pediatric asthma

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids are important part of acute severe asthma (ASA) management in pediatric intensive care units. Few studies look at the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in critical care settings. We aimed to investigate the potential beneficial effects of ICS when added to intravenous corticosteroids in pediatric patients with ASA admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial involving pediatric patients aged 1-21 years admitted to PICU with ASA. Patients were randomized into 2 groups using block randomization. Patients in Group A received intravenous methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day) alone and patients in Group B received intravenous methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day) plus budesonide nebulization (0.5 mg every 12 h). Main outcomes were duration of continuous albuterol treatment, PICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and need and duration of respiratory support. Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, in which a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Duration of continuous albuterol treatment was not different between the 2 groups median/(QR), 30/(18-51) vs. 25/(14-49). (p = 0.38) PICU and hospital LOS between the 2 groups was similar, median/(QR), 44/(30-64) vs. 46/(30-62), (p = 0.75) and 78/(65-95) vs.72/(58-92), (p = 0.19). Number of patients requiring respiratory support was 22(58%) in Group A and 25(64%) in Group B (p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill children with ASA, intravenous methylprednisolone combined with inhaled budesonide did not shorten the duration of continuous albuterol inhalation treatment, the PICU and hospital LOS, and the need for respiratory support.

Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Asthma Exacerbation in Children: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background:

Several studies showed that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be a potential treatment in acute asthma exacerbation in children. This study was an update meta-analysis on the roles of ICS in the management of acute asthma exacerbation in children presenting to the hospital.

Materials and Methods:

Published articles with key words of ICS for asthma exacerbation, asthma attacks, and acute asthma in children aged under 18 years in the hospital setting with outcome of hospital admission between 2009 and 2018 were enrolled. The databases used in this study were Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. Odds ratio of comparison between ICS and other treatments on hospital admissions was calculated.

Results:

There were 311 eligible studies met the searching criteria; seven eligible studies for the analysis; comprised of three meta-analysis and four added studies. The ICS had a significant reduction in hospital admission compared with placebo in overall with odds ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41–0.96) and in moderate-to-severe group with odds ratio of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05–0.51). Comparing with systemic corticosteroid (SC), ICS had significantly lower hospital admissions overall and in mild-to-moderate group with odds ratios of 0.63 and 0.26, respectively. The combination of ICS and SC had odds ratio of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.99) over SC in moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation.

Conclusions:

ICS significantly reduced hospital admission in asthma exacerbation in children. It may be used alone for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbation and combination with SC for moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation.

Inhaled Corticosteroids in Acute Asthma: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations are a common and important cause of attendance at emergency departments (ED) and subsequent hospital admissions. Despite previous reviews reporting that in acute settings the risk of hospital admission is reduced with the use of high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), this evidence has not changed clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the efficacy of ICS in the treatment of acute asthma in ED.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was hospital admission rates. The primary comparison was between administration of ICS in addition to systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and to SCS alone. Secondary comparisons were ICS alone compared with SCS alone and ICS compared with placebo.

RESULTS

There were 25 studies involving 2733 participants. For the primary comparison, ICS in addition to SCS reduced the risk of hospital admission compared with SCS; fixed-effects odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.73 (0.57-0.94). Lung function was poorly reported. There was moderate evidence of an improvement in clinical scores and vital signs with ICS in addition to SCS. Relatively few studies reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence that high doses of ICS, in addition to SCS, reduce the risk of hospital admission in ED treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations. Further research is required to determine their optimal role in both ED and outpatient settings.

Budesonide reduces hospital admission rates in preschool children with acute wheezing

The object of this study was to determine whether high doses of inhaled budesonide provide additional benefits to a standardized treatment regimen that includes systemic steroids and salbutamol in preschool patients presented to the emergency department (ED) with acute wheezing attacks. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial was conducted in children, 6 months-6 years with moderate or severe acute wheezing epizode, as determined based on a pulmonary index score (PIS) of 7-13 points. We compared the addition of budesonide 3 mg versus placebo to standard acute asthma treatment, which included salbutamol and a single 1 mg/kg dose of methylprednisolone given at the beginning of therapy. The primary outcome was differences in hospitalization rates within 4 hr. Secondary outcome was difference in median PIS between treatment groups at 2 hr. Results One hundred patients were enrolled. Cumulative hospitalization rate at 120, 180, and 240 min were 0.72, 0.62, and 0.58 in placebo group; and 0.44, 0.30, and 0.24 in budesonide group. Discharged rate in budesonide group was significantly higher than the placebo group (log-rank = 12.407 ve P < 0.001). Expected mean discharged times were 200.4 (95%CI = 185.3-215.5) min in placebo group and 164.4 (95%CI = 149.4-179.4) min in budesonide group. Median (25-75%) PIS at the 120th min was significantly lower in budesonide group than the placebo group (5 [4-8] vs. 8 [5-9] respectively, P = 0.006). Conclusions The addition of budesonide nebulization may decrease the admission rate of preschool children who have moderate to severe acute wheezing epizodes. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52:720-728. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations or "attacks" during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans may advocate doubling the dose of inhaled steroids in the early stages of an asthma exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of a patient-initiated action plan for home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to March 2016. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared increased versus stable doses of ICS for home management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies of children or adults with persistent asthma who were receiving daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added three new studies including 419 participants to the review. In total, we identified eight RCTs, most of which were at low risk of bias, involving 1669 participants with mild to moderate asthma. We included three paediatric (n = 422) and five adult (n = 1247) studies; six were parallel-group trials and two had a cross-over design. All but one study followed participants for six months to one year. Allowed maintenance doses of ICS varied in adult and paediatric studies, as did use of concomitant medications and doses of ICS initiated during exacerbations. Investigators gave participants a study inhaler containing additional ICS or placebo to be started as part of an action plan for treatment of exacerbations.The odds of treatment failure, defined as the need for oral corticosteroids, were not significantly reduced among those randomised to increased ICS compared with those taking their usual stable maintenance dose (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.18; participants = 1520; studies = 7). When we analysed only people who actually took their study inhaler for an exacerbation, we found much variation between study results but the evidence did not show a significant benefit of increasing ICS dose (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; participants = 766; studies = 7). The odds of having an unscheduled physician visit (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.41; participants = 931; studies = 3) or acute visit (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.98; participants = 450; studies = 3) were not significantly reduced by an increased versus stable dose of ICS, and evidence was insufficient to permit assessment of impact on the duration of exacerbation; our ability to draw conclusions from these outcomes was limited by the number of studies reporting these events and by the number of events included in the analyses. The odds of serious events (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; participants = 394; studies = 2) and non-serious events, such as oral irritation, headaches and changes in appetite (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; participants = 142; studies = 2), were neither increased nor decreased significantly by increased versus stable doses of ICS during an exacerbation. Too few studies are available to allow firm conclusions on the basis of subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, doses used, smoking history and the fold increase of ICS on the magnitude of effect; yet, effect size appears similar in children and adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support increasing the dose of ICS as part of a self initiated action plan to treat exacerbations in adults and children with mild to moderate asthma. Increased ICS dose is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids for the exacerbation, or of having adverse events, compared with a stable ICS dose. Wide confidence intervals for several outcomes mean we cannot rule out possible benefits of this approach.

Systematic review of the toxicity of short-course oral corticosteroids in children

BACKGROUND

Short-course oral corticosteroids are commonly used in children but are known to be associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This review aimed to identify the most common and serious ADRs and to determine their relative risk levels.

METHODS

A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PubMed was performed with no language restrictions to identify studies in which oral corticosteroids were administered to patients aged 28 days to 18 years of age for up to and including 14 days of treatment. Each database was searched from their earliest dates to December 2013. All studies providing clear information on ADRs were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies including 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. The studies involved a total of 3200 children in whom 850 ADRs were reported. The three most frequent ADRs were vomiting, behavioural changes and sleep disturbance, with respective incidence rates of 5.4%, 4.7% and 4.3% of patients assessed for these ADRs. Infection was one of the most serious ADRs; one child died after contracting varicella zoster. When measured, 144 of 369 patients showed increased blood pressure; 21 of 75 patients showed weight gain; and biochemical hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression was detected in 43 of 53 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vomiting, behavioural changes and sleep disturbance were the most frequent ADRs seen when short-course oral corticosteroids were given to children. Increased susceptibility to infection was the most serious ADR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014008774. By PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.

Nebulized fluticasone propionate, a viable alternative to systemic route in the management of childhood moderate asthma attack: A double-blind, double-dummy study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we compared the clinical and immunological efficacy of nebulized corticosteroid (CS) to systemic route during treatment of moderate asthma attack in children.

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, prospective study, 81 children aged 12 months to 16 years experiencing asthma attack randomized into two treatment groups to receive, either; nebulized fluticasone propionate (n = 39, 2000 mcg/day) or oral methylprednisolone (n = 41, 1 mg/kg/day). Pulmonary index scores (PIS) were assessed at admission and at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 24th, 48th hours, as well as, on day 7 and peak expiratory flow (PEF) at baseline and at the 7th day. Daily symptom and medication scores were recorded for all subjects. Immunological studies included phytohemagglutinin induced peripheral blood mononuclear cells culture supernatant for cytokine responses and CD4(+) CD25(+) FOXP3(+) T regulatory cell (T reg) percentage at baseline and day 7.

RESULTS

The changes in PIS and PEF were similar in both treatment groups, with a significant improvement in both values at the 7th day, when compared to baseline. In both groups, significant reductions in symptom and medication scores were observed during the treatment period with no significant difference between the groups. At day 7 of intervention, phytohemagglutinin induced IL-4 level was significantly decreased only in the nebulized group compared to baseline (p = 0.01). Evaluation of cytokine responses by means of fold increase (stimulated (S)/unstimulated (US) ratio) revealed a significant reduction in IL-4, IL-5 and IL-17 only in nebulized group (p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.02; respectively). The fold increase value of IL-5 was significantly lower at 7th day in nebulized group when compared to systemic one (p = 0.02). At 7th day, although in both treatment groups the percentage of T reg cells was suppressed, it remained significantly higher in the nebule one when compared to systemic route (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In the management of moderate acute asthma attack, nebulized CS (2000 mcg daily) was found to be as effective as systemic route with regard to clinical improvement. In addition, immunological parameters were more in favor of nebulized route which may imply a salutary effect of local CS usage.

The Addition of Inhaled Budesonide to Standard Therapy Shortens the Length of Stay in Hospital for Asthmatic Preschool Children: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations lead to frequent emergency visits and hospitalizations, and are associated with high morbidity and occasionally mortality. New therapeutic strategies are needed. We sought to investigate whether the addition of high-dose inhaled budesonide to standard therapy would shorten the length of stay (LOS) in hospital of children admitted for asthma exacerbations.

METHODS

The study was designed as a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled and parallel-group trial. Children aged 7-72 months and admitted with an asthma exacerbation clinical asthma score (CAS) of between 3 and 9 were allocated to either the budesonide (n = 50) or the placebo (n = 50) group. Hospital LOS was compared between children who received 2 mg/day of budesonide versus placebo in addition to standard management of asthma exacerbation involving oxygen inhalation and β2-agonist, anticholinergic and oral corticosteroid therapy. All patients were assessed every 4 h. Children with a CAS <3, a peripheral oxygen saturation >95% and normal pulmonary function, and those with a symptom-free period of at least 4 h after salbutamol treatment were discharged.

RESULTS

Total hospital LOS was significantly shorter in the budesonide group than in the placebo group (median: 44 vs. 80 h, respectively; p = 0.01). When compared with placebo, the number of inpatients was significantly less in the budesonide group at all the assessed end points (Kaplan-Meier; p = 0.022). Additionally, nebulized budesonide was found to reduce the overall cost of treatment.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that, for children hospitalized for asthma exacerbations, an additional 2 mg/day of nebulized budesonide significantly reduced hospital LOS as well as the overall cost of treatment.

Effects of nebulized high-dose budesonide on moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of asthma in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma exacerbation are yet to be clarified. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of nebulized ICS in children with moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of asthma in an emergency room setting in order to elucidate the potential use of ICS as the first-line therapy in the management of acute exacerbation of asthma.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of asthma in emergency room were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and ipratropium bromide, with the addition of nebulized high-dose budesonide (BUD group, n = 60) or normal saline (control group, n = 58), three doses in the first hour.

RESULTS

The improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s was similar in both groups at 0 h after three doses of nebulization, but there was significantly further improvement at 1 and 2 h in the BUD group (0.095 ± 0.062 L and 0.100 ± 0.120 L, respectively) compared with the control group (0.059 ± 0.082 L and 0.021 ± 0.128 L, respectively), P = 0.013 and 0.001, respectively. Complete remission rate was significantly higher (84.7% vs 46.3%, P = 0.004) and need for oral corticosteroids was significantly lower (16.9% vs 46.3%, P = 0.011) in BUD group than in control group.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of nebulized short-acting bronchodilators, addition of nebulized high-dose budesonide resulted in clinical improvement in children with moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of asthma, suggesting that nebulized high-dose ICS can be used as first-line therapy for non-life-threatening acute exacerbation of asthma in children.

Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute asthma in children. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) against systemic corticosteroids (SC) in children consulting in emergency department (ED) or equivalent for asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

Electronic search in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and LILACS databases and other sources. Study selection criteria: children 2-18 years of age, consulting in ED or equivalent for asthma exacerbation, comparison between ICS and SC, randomized controlled trials.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

hospital admission rate, unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms, need of additional course of SC.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

improvement of lung function, length of stay in ED, clinical scores, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria (N = 797), published between 1995 and 2006. All used prednisolone as SC and budesonide, fluticasone, dexamethasone, and flunisolide were administered as ICS. No significant difference between ICS versus SC was found in terms of hospital admission (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.57), unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms (RR: 9.55; 95% CI: 0.53-170.52) nor for need of additional course of SC (RR: 1.45; 95% CI: 0.28-7.62). The change in % of predicted FEV1 at fourth hour was significantly higher for SC group, but there was no significant difference between both groups after this time. There was insufficient data to perform meta-analysis of length of stay during first consult in ED and of symptom scores. Vomiting was similar among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of a difference between ICS and SC in terms of hospital admission rates, unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms and need of additional course of SC in children consulting for asthma exacerbations.

Effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma in children in the emergency department: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment of an acute asthma attack in children in the emergency department (ED) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus placebo or oral systemic corticosteroids (SC) as assessed by the hospital admission rates.

METHODS

After searching Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, we identified ten articles that described randomized controlled trials of ICS versus placebo or oral SC for treating children with asthma attacks in the ED. Primary outcome was the hospital admission rate as defined as inpatient admission or admission into intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Across the studies, a range of drugs and doses were used. For ICS, six studies administered budesonide (dose range: 0.4-2 mg), and three studies gave fluticasone/flunisolide (dose range: 0.5-2 mg). Six studies administered oral prednisone (dose range: 1-2 mg/kg/day), and four studies gave placebo. The rate of hospital admissions in patients treated with ICS was not significantly higher than those treated with oral SC. The rate of hospital admissions in patients treated with ICS was significantly lower than those treated with placebo.

CONCLUSION

ICS treatment of children with acute asthma exacerbations showed a similar rate of hospitalization as those treated by SC.

Acute asthma exacerbations in childhood: risk factors, prevention and treatment

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease more appropriately seen as a syndrome rather than a single pathologic entity. Although it can remain quiescent for extended time periods, the inflammatory and remodeling processes affect the bronchial milieu and predispose to acute and occasionally severe clinical manifestations. The complexity underlying these episodes is enhanced during childhood, an era of ongoing alterations and maturation of key biological systems. In this review, the authors focus on such sudden-onset events, emphasizing on their diversity on the basis of the numerous asthma phenotypes.

Inhaled steroids for acute asthma following emergency department discharge

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department (ED) are frequently treated with inhaled beta(2)-agonists and systemic corticosteroids after discharge. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) following discharge may also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes after acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of ICS on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the ED. To quantify the effectiveness of ICS therapy on acute asthma following ED discharge, when used in addition to, or as a substitute for, systemic corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals and conference proceedings. In addition, primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts also were searched. The searches have been conducted up to September 2012

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and following ED discharge were treated with ICS therapy either in addition to, or as a substitute for, oral corticosteroids. Two review authors independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors, or confirmed by the study authors. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed effect model and heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were eligible for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus systemic corticosteroids versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to oral corticosteroid therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced; however, this was not statistically significant with the addition of ICS therapy (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02; 3 studies; N = 909). In addition, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores or adverse effects.Nine trials, involving a total of 1296 patients compared high-dose ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone for relapse rates (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 4 studies; N = 684), admissions to hospital, or in the secondary outcomes of beta(2)-agonist use, symptoms or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior and people with severe asthma were excluded from these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed.

Early use of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroid therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may also be beneficial in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit of ICS for the treatment of patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department (ED).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified controlled clinical trials from the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of controlled trials. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The latest search was September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients presented to the ED or its equivalent with acute asthma, and were treated with ICS or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors. There were three different types of studies that were included in this review: 1) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with no systemic corticosteroids given to either treatment group, 2) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with systemic corticosteroids given to both treatment groups, and 3) studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroids. For the analysis, the first two types of studies were included as separate subgroups in the primary analysis (ICS vs. placebo), while the third type of study was included in the secondary analysis (ICS vs. systemic corticosteroid).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors if the authors were unable to verify the validity of extracted information. Missing data were obtained from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the paper. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analysis (13 paediatric, seven adult), with a total number of 1403 patients. Patients treated with ICS were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62; 12 studies; 960 patients) and heterogeneity (I(2) = 27%) was modest. This represents a reduction from 32 to 17 hospital admissions per 100 patients treated with ICS in comparison with placebo. Subgroup analysis of hospital admissions based on concomitant systemic corticosteroid use revealed that both subgroups indicated benefit from ICS in reducing hospital admissions (ICS and systemic corticosteroid versus systemic corticosteroid: OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 5 studies; N = 433; ICS versus placebo: OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 7 studies; N = 527). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the subgroup using ICS in addition to systemic steroids (I(2) = 52%). Patients receiving ICS demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flow (PEF: MD 7%; 95% CI 3% to 11%) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1): MD 6%; 95% CI 2% to 10%) at three to four hours post treatment). Only a small number of studies reported these outcomes such that they could be included in the meta-analysis and most of the studies in this comparison did not administer systemic corticosteroids to either treatment group. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects from ICS treatment with regard to tremor or nausea and vomiting. In the secondary analysis of studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroid alone, heterogeneity among the studies complicated pooling of data or drawing reliable conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICS therapy reduces hospital admissions in patients with acute asthma who are not treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids. They may also reduce admissions when they are used in addition to systemic corticosteroids; however, the most recent evidence is conflicting. There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma in addition to systemic corticosteroids. Also, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy can be used in place of systemic corticosteroid therapy when treating acute asthma. Further research is needed to clarify the most appropriate drug dosage and delivery device, and to define which patients are most likely to benefit from ICS therapy. Use of similar measures and reporting methods of lung function, and a common, validated, clinical score would be helpful in future versions of this meta-analysis.

Childhood asthma in low income countries: an invisible killer?

Bacterial pneumonia has hitherto been considered the key cause of the high respiratory morbidity and mortality in children under five years of age (under-5s) in low-income countries, while asthma has not been stated as a significant reason. This paper explores the definitions and concepts of pneumonia and asthma/wheezing/bronchiolitis and examines whether asthma in under-5s may be confused with pneumonia. Over-diagnosing of bacterial pneumonia can be suspected from the limited association between clinical pneumonia and confirmatory test results such as chest x-ray and microbiological findings and poor treatment results using antibiotics. Moreover, children diagnosed with recurrent pneumonia in infancy were often later diagnosed with asthma. Recent studies showed a 10-15% prevalence of preschool asthma in low-income countries, although under-5s with long-term cough and difficulty breathing remain undiagnosed. New studies demonstrate that approximately 50% of acutely admitted under-5s diagnosed with pneumonia according to Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses could be re-diagnosed with asthma or wheezing when using re-defined diagnostic criteria and treatment. It is hypothesised that untreated asthma may contribute to respiratory mortality since respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of respiratory death in childhood, and asthma in under-5s is often exacerbated by viral infections, including RSV. Furthermore, acute respiratory treatment failures were predominantly seen in under-5s without fever, which suggests the diagnosis of asthma/wheezing rather than bacterial pneumonia. Ultimately, underlying asthma may have contributed to malnutrition and fatal bacterial pneumonia. In conclusion, preschool asthma in low-income countries may be significantly under-diagnosed and misdiagnosed as pneumonia, and may be the cause of much morbidity and mortality.

Progress in the management of childhood asthma

Asthma has become the most common chronic disease in childhood. Significant advances in epidemiological research as well as in therapy of pediatric asthma have been made over the past 2 decades. In this review, we look at certain aspects therapy of childhood asthma, both in the past and present. Literature review on allergen avoidance (including mites, cockroach and cat), intensive therapy with β(2)-agonists in acute asthma (administering via continuous nebulization and intravenous routes), a revisit of theophylline use and its action, the use of inhaled corticosteroids in various phases of childhood asthma and sublingual immunotherapy in asthma are examined. Recent facts and dilemmas of these treatments are identified along with expression of our opinions, particularly on points of childhood asthma in the Asia-Pacific, are made in this review.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mcg (range 200 mcg to 795 mcg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mcg (range 1000 mcg to 2075 mcg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mcg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mcg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mg (range 200 mg to 795 mg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mg (range 1000 mg to 2075 mg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Managing outpatient asthma exacerbations

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that renders individuals vulnerable to acute exacerbations. A wide variety of allergic and nonallergic triggers can incite an asthma exacerbation. The goals of managing an asthma exacerbation are prompt recognition, rapid reversal of airflow obstruction, avoidance of relapses, and prevention of future episodes. A written asthma home management plan is essential to minimize the severity of exacerbations. Short-acting beta-agonists, oxygen, and corticosteroids remain fundamental to early intervention in acute asthma exacerbations. Anticholinergics and magnesium sulfate can help nonresponders. Combination inhalers of the long-acting beta-agonist formoterol and inhaled steroid budesonide have been effective in flexible dosing in treating early acute exacerbations and as a daily controller medication outside the United States. Initiation or intensification of long-term controller therapy, treatment of comorbid conditions, trigger avoidance, and prompt follow-up can help prevent relapses. Listening to patient preferences and concerns enhances adherence, and regular follow-up care can help prevent future episodes.

Management of acute asthma exacerbations in children

The management of acute asthma exacerbations in children remains controversial and the latest guidelines (Expert Panel Report [EPR]-3 2007 and the Global Initiative of Asthma 2008) leave several questions unanswered. This review summarizes the most up-to-date information on the practical prevention and control of asthma attacks in children, and describes the 20-year experience of a major tertiary asthma clinic with the administration of inhaled corticosteroids in this setting. The following subjects are discussed: the knowledge and skills required by the parents regarding asthma and its treatment, how to prevent or minimize exacerbations in asthmatic children, the drugs used in the treatment of exacerbations and their order of administration, and the steps to follow after discharge from the emergency department or after a severe asthma exacerbation. The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of acute asthma exacerbations in children, both at home and in the emergency department, is discussed in detail. The goal of asthma-management programs is to arm parents with the skills and knowledge to prevent, detect and successfully control most exacerbations of asthma in children at home.

Inhaled corticosteroids as rescue medication in acute severe asthma

Systemic corticosteroids (CS) should be considered as first-line treatment for acute asthma exacerbations, especially severe exacerbations. They may sometimes require a few hours or more to achieve their maximum effect. This time delay observed between administration of CS and improvement in lung function or hospital admissions is consistent with the belief that these effects of CS, involving the modification of gene expression, occur with a time lag of hours or days (genomic effect). On the other hand, CS also have effects initiated by specific interactions with membrane-bound or cytoplasmic receptors for CS, or nonspecific interactions with the cell membrane, with a much more rapid response (seconds or minutes; nongenomic effect). This review analyzes the clinical evidence regarding the use of inhaled CS in acute asthma patients, according to the characteristics of the nongenomic effect, and presents a proposal for the use of inhaled CS as a rescue medication in the emergency-department setting.

Inhaled corticosteroids as rescue medication in asthma exacerbations in children

The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as rescue medication for asthma exacerbations in children is controversial. ICS have the important potential advantage of direct delivery to the airways, which substantially reduces the risk of the adverse systemic effects that may be associated with oral corticosteroids. Oral corticosteroids are still preferred for severe attacks. Five randomized, controlled studies performed at home and six performed in the emergency department indicated that ICS are at least as effective as the oral route. Our pediatric out-patient asthma clinic has been using ICS for asthma exacerbations for more than 25 years. The key elements to success are the administration of repetitive doses at least four-times higher than the maintenance dose and parental adherence to the treatment plan. This article reviews the findings in the literature favoring this approach and describes our methodology in detail.

Acute severe asthma: new approaches to assessment and treatment

The precise definition of a severe asthmatic exacerbation is an issue that presents difficulties. The term 'status asthmaticus' relates severity to outcome and has been used to define a severe asthmatic exacerbation that does not respond to and/or perilously delays the repetitive or continuous administration of short-acting inhaled beta(2)-adrenergic receptor agonists (SABA) in the emergency setting. However, a number of limitations exist concerning the quantification of unresponsiveness. Therefore, the term 'acute severe asthma' is widely used, relating severity mostly to a combination of the presenting signs and symptoms and the severity of the cardiorespiratory abnormalities observed, although it is well known that presentation does not foretell outcome. In an acute severe asthma episode, close observation plus aggressive administration of bronchodilators (SABAs plus ipratropium bromide via a nebulizer driven by oxygen) and oral or intravenous corticosteroids are necessary to arrest the progression to severe hypercapnic respiratory failure leading to a decrease in consciousness that requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission and, eventually, ventilatory support. Adjunctive therapies (intravenous magnesium sulfate and/or others) should be considered in order to avoid intubation. Management after admission to the hospital ward because of an incomplete response is similar. The decision to intubate is essentially based on clinical judgement. Although cardiac or respiratory arrest represents an absolute indication for intubation, the usual picture is that of a conscious patient struggling to breathe. Factors associated with the increased likelihood of intubation include exhaustion and fatigue despite maximal therapy, deteriorating mental status, refractory hypoxaemia, increasing hypercapnia, haemodynamic instability and impending coma or apnoea. To intubate, sedation is indicated in order to improve comfort, safety and patient-ventilator synchrony, while at the same time decrease oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Benzodiazepines can be safely used for sedation of the asthmatic patient, but time to awakening after discontinuation is prolonged and difficult to predict. The most common alternative is propofol, which is attractive in patients with sudden-onset (near-fatal) asthma who may be eligible for extubation within a few hours, because it can be titrated rapidly to a deep sedation level and has rapid reversal after discontinuation; in addition, it possesses bronchodilatory properties. The addition of an opioid (fentanyl or remifentanil) administered by continuous infusion to benzodiazepines or propofol is often desirable in order to provide amnesia, sedation, analgesia and respiratory drive suppression. Acute severe asthma is characterized by severe pulmonary hyperinflation due to marked limitation of the expiratory flow. Therefore, the main objective of the initial ventilator management is 2-fold: to ensure adequate gas exchange and to prevent further hyperinflation and ventilator-associated lung injury. This may require hypoventilation of the patient and higher arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO(2)) levels and a more acidic pH. This does not apply to asthmatic patients intubated for cardiac or respiratory arrest. In this setting the post-anoxic brain oedema might demand more careful management of PaCO(2) levels to prevent further elevation of intracranial pressure and subsequent complications. Monitoring lung mechanics is of paramount importance for the safe ventilation of patients with status asthmaticus. The first line of specific pharmacological therapy in ventilated asthmatic patients remains bronchodilation with a SABA, typically salbutamol (albuterol). Administration techniques include nebulizers or metered-dose inhalers with spacers. Systemic corticosteroids are critical components of therapy and should be administered to all ventilated patients, although the dose of systemic corticosteroids in mechanically ventilated asthmatic patients remains controversial. Anticholinergics, inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and methylxanthines offer little benefit, and clinical data favouring their use are lacking. In conclusion, expertise, perseverance, judicious decisions and practice of evidence-based medicine are of paramount importance for successful outcomes for patients with acute severe asthma.

Advances in treating acute asthma exacerbations in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma continues to be a major chronic disease in children, and acute asthma exacerbations are common. Although the basic therapy of asthma exacerbations has not changed, recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with different modes of delivery of medications, improved patients' self-management of their asthma, and recognition of risk factors for severe exacerbations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies in children have shown that written action plans based on symptom recognition are more effective than action plans based on peak expiratory flows. Bronchodilator administration by metered-dose inhaler is becoming the preferred therapy for treating mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations in the emergency department, but nebulizers may still have a role in home and inpatient asthma management. High-dose inhaled corticosteroids may be as effective as oral corticosteroids for acute asthma exacerbations. A novel treatment strategy has titrated combination therapy with budesonide and formoterol for both maintenance and relief of symptoms. Lastly, the contributions of obesity and genetic variation to severe asthma exacerbations are becoming known, and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation has become an option for patients in severe asthma exacerbations.

SUMMARY

Improvements in management strategies can significantly improve outcomes in children with asthma.

Signs and symptoms that precede wheezing in children with a pattern of moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing

OBJECTIVES

To examine parent-reported signs and symptoms as antecedents of wheezing in preschool children with previous moderate to severe wheezing episodes, and to determine the predictive capacity of these symptom patterns for wheezing events.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents (n = 238) of children age 12 to 59 months with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing enrolled in a year-long clinical trial completed surveys that captured signs and symptoms at the start of a respiratory tract illness (RTI). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value (PPV) for each symptom leading to wheezing during that RTI were calculated.

RESULTS

The most commonly reported first symptom categories during the first RTI were "nose symptoms" (41%), "significant cough" (29%), and "insignificant cough" (13%). The most reliable predictor of subsequent wheezing was significant cough, which had a specificity of 78% and a PPV of 74% for predicting wheezing.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant cough is the most reliable antecedent of wheezing during an RTI. It may be useful to consider individualized symptom patterns as a component of management plans intended to minimize wheezing episodes.

Effectiveness of high repeated doses of inhaled budesonide or fluticasone in controlling acute asthma exacerbations in young children

OBJECTIVE

The role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations in children is controversial. This study compared the effect of inhaled budesonide and inhaled fluticasone in controlling acute asthma exacerbations in young children at home.

METHODS

In a quasi-randomized crossover design, children aged 5 months to 5 years with severe recurrent asthma episodes were treated either with inhaled budesonide 200 mcg or inhaled fluticasone 125 mcg delivered with a similar spacer. At the onset of asthma exacerbations, 2 puffs of inhaled terbutaline followed by inhaled budesonide or fluticasone was administered using one of the following treatment protocols: 1 4-day protocol for a relatively mild exacerbation; 2 8-day protocol for exacerbations that were more severe or uncontrolled by the 4-day protocol; and 3 8-day protocol + azithromycin for exacerbations uncontrolled by the 8-day protocol or possibly associated with infection with atypical agents. Children were followed for 2 months after each exacerbation. Good response was defined as the absence of asthma symptoms for at least 2 weeks from completion of treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred children were recruited: 36 were treated with budesonide, 21 with fluticasone, and 44 with both on different occasions. The groups were similar for preliminary data. Good response was noted in 87% of the budesonide group, 85% of the fluticasone group, and 86% of the budesonide/fluticasone group. By protocol, rates of good response were 84%, 83%, and 94% for the 4-day, 8-day, and 8-day+azithromycin treatment protocols, respectively; corresponding symptom-free periods after treatment were 4.0, 4.9, and 4.3 weeks. None of the children received oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

Acute asthma exacerbations in young children can be effectively controlled at home with the use of high repetitive doses of inhaled budesonide or inhaled fluticasone, initially together with beta(2)-agonists, given at the beginning of the attack, for a period of 4-8 days.

Comparison of single 2000-microg dose treatment vs. sequential repeated-dose 500-microg treatments with nebulized budesonide in acute asthma exacerbations

BACKGROUND

High repeated doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recognized as having a more rapid improvement of outcomes than a single dose of ICS in severe acute asthma. However, to our knowledge, there has been no direct comparison of the early effects of single or repeated administration of the same total dosage of ICS in children with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a single dose of 2000 microg of nebulized budesonide with 4 repeated doses of 500 microg of nebulized budesonide in 40 children with an acute asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, parallel study that compared the efficacy of 2000 microg of nebulized budesonide, administered in a single dose, with repeated doses (4 doses of 500 microg each) during the first 90 minutes in 40 children (mean [SD] age, 10.7 [2.4] years) with an acute asthma exacerbation that required treatment with an oral corticosteroid. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma attack score, and oxygen saturation were evaluated at 20, 40, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 minutes after initial treatment. Oral corticosteroids were given to all patients at 90 minutes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P = .54) at any times between the groups. Also, asthma scores and oxygen saturation were not different in either group within 90 minutes (P = .51 and P = .64, respectively) and thereafter (P = .35 and P = .87, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of a single dose of nebulized budesonide is as effective as repeated administration of the same total dosage during the first 90 minutes before giving oral corticosteroids in children with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma.

[Management of acute asthma exacerbations in pediatrics]

Despite the significant advances that have been produced in the management of asthma in the last few decades, crises, attacks, or asthma exacerbations (acute asthma) continue to be the most common cause of consultation in pediatric emergency units. Visits to these units and hospital admissions due to acute asthma represent three quarters of the direct costs due to this disease. Acute asthma is a medical emergency that should be rapidly diagnosed and treated. Evaluation of children with acute asthma exacerbations should consist of two phases: a static phase (determination of the severity of the crisis on admission) and a dynamic phase (treatment response). The present article provides an in-depth review and analysis of current pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments (oxygen, bronchodilators, corticosteroids - inhaled and systemic - aminophylline, magnesium sulfate, etc.) of acute asthma exacerbations and proposes management protocols for use in both primary care and emergency units.

Acute severe asthma

Acute severe asthma remains a major economic and health burden. The natural history of acute decompensations is one of resolution and only about 0.4% of patients succumb overall. Mortality in medical intensive care units is higher but is less than 3% of hospital admissions. "Near-fatal" episodes may be more frequent, but precise figures are lacking. However, about 30% of medical intensive care unit admissions require intubation and mechanical ventilation with mortality of 8%. Morbidity and mortality increase with socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity. Seventy to 80% of patients in emergency departments clear within 2 hours with standardized care. The relapse rate varies between 7 and 15%, depending on how aggressively the patient is treated. The airway obstruction in the 20-30% of people resistant to adrenergic agonists in the emergency department slowly reverses over 36-48 hours but requires intense treatment to do so. Current therapeutic options for this group consist of ipratropium and corticosteroids in combination with beta2 selective drugs. Even so, such regimens are not optimal and better approaches are needed. The long-term prognosis after a near-fatal episode is poor and mortality may approach 10%.

[Inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma exacerbations: essential concepts]

The use of systemic corticosteroids reduces hospitalizations in patients suffering an asthma attack and improves lung function within 6 to 12 hours of administration. However, despite the considerable body of positive evidence published in the last decade, doubts remain in regard to the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids. Analysis of this evidence has been cursory; crucial data on the mechanism of action of corticosteroids have been overlooked and there has been a failure to distinguish between antiinflammatory effects and so-called nongenomic effects. This review considers the biological basis for the effects of inhaled corticosteroids and analyzes the best data available on the use and therapeutic implications of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma exacerbations.

Salivary oxidative stress in children during acute asthmatic attack and during remission

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma generate an increased amount of reactive oxygen species from peripheral blood cells, which may contribute to its pathogenesis. Saliva analysis is non-invasive and friendly to children. We undertook this study to analyze the salivary oxidative profile and composition in children with asthma during attack and remission, and to compare them with the levels of salivary antioxidants of healthy control children.

METHODS

School age (range 6-18 years) children referred to the emergency room for acute asthma were included. Clinical score was assessed, spirometry performed, and saliva samples were collected and analyzed. All measurements were repeated during remission of asthma attack (2-4 weeks after attack). Salivary analysis was performed blindly during asthma attack and the results were compared to those obtained during remission, and to those of the control group.

RESULTS

Statistically significant decreases in levels of salivary peroxidase enzyme activity were observed in asthmatic children during attack compared with healthy controls, with partial recovery during remission of attack. Similarly decreased levels of calcium concentrations were observed in asthmatic children, accompanied by increased phosphate levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with acute asthma attacks exhibit a decrease in the activity of the most important salivary antioxidant enzyme-peroxidase, which is accompanied by other salivary composition alterations. Hence, acute asthma is manifested by salivary changes. This implies systemic oxidative stress in asthma, which may be reflected in salivary analysis.

Rapid effects of inhaled corticosteroids in acute asthma: an evidence-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

Current reviews on the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for acute asthma underestimated their early (minutes) clinical impact and produced conclusions of questionable validity.

OBJECTIVE

The analysis of the best evidence available on the early (1 to 4 h) clinical impact of ICS for patients with acute asthma in the emergency department (ED) setting.

METHODS

Published (from 1966 to 2006) randomized controlled trials were retrieved using different databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register), bibliographic reviews of primary research, review articles, and citations from texts. Primary outcome measures were admission and ED discharge rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met criteria for inclusion in the review (470 adults and 663 children and adolescents). After 2 to 4 h of protocol, a greater reduction in admission rate was observed with trials that used multiple doses of ICS (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.55), especially when they were compared with placebo. Patients treated with ICS also displayed a faster clinical improvement compared with placebo or systemic corticosteroids (SCS), increasing the probability of an early ED discharge (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.97 to 7.42; p = 0.0001). The advantage of the use of ICS was also demonstrated in spirometric and clinical measures as early as 60 min. These benefits were obtained only when patients received multiple doses of ICS along with beta-agonists compared with placebo or SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggests that ICS present early beneficial effects (1 to 2 h) when they were used in multiple doses administered in time intervals < or = 30 min over 90 to 120 min. The nongenomic effect is a possible candidate by covering the link between molecular pathways and the clinical effects of corticosteroids.

Inhaled budesonide in the management of acute worsenings and exacerbations of asthma: a review of the evidence

The use of systemic corticosteroids, together with bronchodilators and oxygen therapy, has become established for the management of acute asthma. These agents are undoubtedly effective, but are also associated with problems such as metabolic adverse effects. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) offer potential benefit in the acute setting because they are delivered directly to the airways. They are also likely to reduce systemic exposure, which would lead in turn to reductions in rates of unwanted systemic effects. In order to evaluate the role of budesonide in the management of acute asthma exacerbations we conducted a review of the literature and critically evaluated the rationale for the use of ICS in general in this setting. Trials in adults and children requiring treatment for acute exacerbation of asthma have shown clinical and/or spirometric benefit for budesonide when delivered via nebulizer, dry powder inhaler, or aerosol in the emergency department, hospital and follow-up settings. The efficacy seems to benefit from high doses given repeatedly during the initial phase of an acute exacerbation. These acute effects are likely to be linked to the drug's distinctive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. The current evidence base revealed encouraging results regarding the efficacy of the ICS budesonide in patients with wheeze and acute worsening of asthma. Future studies should focus on the efficacy of these agents in more severe asthma worsenings.

Systemic corticosteroid therapy for acute asthma exacerbations

Acute exacerbations of asthma may represent reactions to airway irritants or failures of chronic treatment. The costs to both the patient and society are high. Exacerbations often are frightening episodes that can cause significant morbidity and sometimes death. The emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations often required lead to significant health care expenses. Thus, preventing and optimizing management of acute exacerbations is critical. Corticosteroids are a cornerstone of asthma therapy. They have been shown to lower admission rates and reduce risk of relapse. This article provides an overview of the role of corticosteroids (including betamethasone, dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, and prednisolone) in the management of acute asthma exacerbations, with an aim toward effective decision making about the choice of therapy.

High-dose inhaled fluticasone does not replace oral prednisolone in children with mild to moderate acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are not as effective as oral corticosteroids in school-aged children with severe acute asthma. It is uncertain how inhaled corticosteroids compare with oral corticosteroids in mild to moderate exacerbations.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to determine whether there is a significant difference in the percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with mild to moderate acute asthma treated with either inhaled fluticasone or oral prednisolone.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind controlled trial conducted between 2001 and 2004 in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. We studied a convenience sample of 69 previously healthy children 5 to 17 years of age with acute asthma and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at 50% to 79% predicted value; 41 families refused participation. Albuterol was given in the emergency department and salmeterol was given after discharge to all patients, as well as either 2 mg of fluticasone via metered dose inhaler and valved holding chamber in the emergency department plus 500 microg twice daily via Diskus for 10 doses after discharge (fluticasone group, N = 35) or 2 mg/kg of oral prednisolone in the emergency department plus 5 daily doses of 1 mg/kg of prednisolone after discharge (prednisolone group, N = 34). We measured a priori defined absolute change in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 4 and 48 hours in the 2 groups. RESULTS. At 240 minutes, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased by 19.1% +/- 12.7% in the fluticasone group and 29.8% +/- 15.5% in the prednisolone group. At 48 hours, this difference was no longer significant (estimated difference: 4.0 +/- 3.4; P = .14). The relapse rates by 48 hours were 12.5% and 0% in the fluticasone group and prednisolone group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Airway obstruction in children with mild to moderate acute asthma in the emergency department improves faster on oral than inhaled corticosteroids.

Budesonide inhalation suspension for the treatment of asthma in infants and children

On the basis of the well recognised role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of asthma, anti-inflammatory therapy, in the form of inhaled corticosteroids, has become the mainstay of treatment in patients with persistent asthma. Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) is a nonhalogenated corticosteroid with a high ratio of local anti-inflammatory activity to systemic activity. Furthermore, BIS is approved in >70 countries for the maintenance treatment of bronchial asthma in both paediatric and adult patients (approval is limited to paediatric patients in the US and France).Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in >1000 children have demonstrated the efficacy of BIS in children with persistent asthma of varying degrees of severity. In children frequently hospitalised with uncontrolled asthma, initiation of BIS therapy can reduce the need for emergency intervention. Moreover, limited data suggest that BIS is effective for the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma in children and may reduce the need for short courses of oral corticosteroids.BIS is well tolerated in children, with an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo, and no clinically relevant changes in adrenal function have been demonstrated during the course of short- and long-term (1-year) studies. Small but statistically significant reductions in growth velocity have been demonstrated with BIS over 1 year of treatment. However, available evidence suggests that growth effects are transient in children receiving budesonide and that these children eventually achieve full adult height.

Inhaled fluticasone propionate is effective as well as oral prednisone in reducing sputum eosinophilia during exacerbations of asthma which do not require hospitalization

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether fluticasone propionate (FP) is effective as well as prednisone (P) in reducing sputum eosinophilia and in improving airway obstruction due to asthma exacerbations not requiring hospitalization. We measured, in a parallel-group, double-blind double-dummy, randomized study, sputum and blood inflammatory cell counts and soluble mediators in 37 asthmatic subjects during a spontaneous exacerbation of asthma (Visit 1) and after a 2 week (Visit 2) treatment with inhaled FP (1000microg bid) (Group A, n=18) or a reducing course of oral P (Group B, n=19). Asthma exacerbation was accompanied by sputum eosinophilia (eosinophils >2%) in almost all patients (95%). FP improved FEV(1) (from 53.9%+/-16.8 at Visit 1 to 76.4%+/-21.2 at Visit 2, p=0.0001) and reduced the percentage of sputum eosinophils (from 38%[0-78] to 3%[1-31, p=0.0008) as well as oral P (FEV(1): from 51.5%+/-14.4 to 83.6%+/-21.1, p=0.0001; sputum eosinophils: from 52%[1-96] to 11%[0-64], p=0.0003). At Visit 2, sputum eosinophils were significantly lower in Group A than in Group B. P but not FP induced significant decrease in blood and sputum ECP. Oxygen saturation, PEF variability, symptom score and use of rescue medication similarly improved in both groups. We conclude that FP is effective at least as well as P in reducing sputum eosinophilia and in improving airway obstruction due to asthma exacerbation. However, the cost/effectiveness ratio of this option should be further evaluated.

The effect of nebulized budesonide treatment in children with mild to moderate exacerbations of asthma

BACKGROUND

The role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma remains a controversial subject.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group clinical trial on the effect of a 5-d course of nebulized budesonide treatment in children with mild to moderate exacerbation of asthma was performed. The need for systemic corticosteroid intervention was evaluated as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children aged 6 to 15 y were enrolled. During the emergency department phase, they received three nebulizations of either budesonide(1 mg/dose) or placebo, and then in the home phase of the study, they continued their study medications twice a day for another 4 d. Though the level of improvement in the emergency department phase was similar between the groups given either budesonide or placebo treatments (6.8 +/-1.9% vs 4.0+/-1.5%, p = 0.30, respectively), nebulized budesonide caused a trend towards a benefit in terms of the need for systemic corticosteroid intervention (2/33 vs 7/34, p = 0.07), but not in secondary outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Though we show a tendency towards a benefit with nebulized budesonide in children with mild to moderate exacerbations in terms of prevention of progression of the illness, the documented benefit is small and includes, at least, consideration for clinical significance, cost-effectiveness, impracticality and safety.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol in the treatment of acute asthma

This study compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Turbuhaler)) with salbutamol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with spacer for relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (n = 104 allocated to treatment; n = 103 received treatment; mean age 45 years) seeking medical attention for acute asthma (mean FEV(1) 43% of predicted) received two doses repeated at t = -5 and 0 min of either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, two inhalations) or salbutamol (100 microg x eight inhalations); total doses 1280/36 microg and 1600 microg, respectively. All patients received prednisolone 60 mg at 90 min and FEV(1) was assessed over 3h. FEV(1) 90 min after dosing (primary variable) increased compared with pre-dose FEV(1) by an average of 30% and 32% for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol, respectively (P = 0.66), with similar increases at all timepoints from 3 to 180 min for both groups. Mean pulse rate over 3h was significantly higher in the salbutamol group versus the budesonide/formoterol group (92 vs. 88 bpm; P < 0.01). No treatment differences were seen for other vital signs, including ECG. High-dose budesonide/formoterol was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of acute asthma, with rapid onset of efficacy and a safety profile over 3h similar to high-dose salbutamol.

The effect of montelukast on exhaled nitric oxide and lung function in asthmatic children 2 to 5 years old

OBJECTIVE

The study was undertaken to investigate the influence of once-daily treatment with montelukast (Singulair; MSD; Glattbrugg, Switzerland) on levels of exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) and lung function in preschool children with asthma.

METHODS

A total of 30 children (19 girls), 2 to 5 years of age, in whom asthma had been newly diagnosed, who had a positive first-degree family history of asthma and a positive allergy test result, were allocated to undergo a 1-week run-in period of montelukast treatment. eNO and airway resistance were measured in all patients before (visit 1) and after the run-in period (visit 2), and after treatment with montelukast (4 mg once daily) for 4 weeks (visit 3).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in all parameters before and after the run-in period. However, the mean (SD) levels of eNO and the mean (SD) levels of airway resistance after treatment at visit 3 were 11.6 parts per billion (ppb) [9.5 ppb] and 1.15 kPa/L/s (0.26 kPa/L/s), respectively, and were significantly lower compared to values of 33.1 ppb (12.0 ppb) and 1.28 kPa/L/s (0.23 kPa/L/s), respectively, before treatment (p < 0.001) and at visit 2 (p = 0.01). There was no significant change in mean bronchodilator responsiveness between visit 3 (13.2%; SD, 6.8%) and visit 1/visit 2 (13.3%; SD, 7.0%; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

We have shown that montelukast has a positive effect on lung function and airway inflammation as measured by nitric oxide level in preschool children with allergic asthma.

Comparison of inhaled fluticasone with intravenous hydrocortisone in the treatment of adult acute asthma

RATIONALE

Several studies published in the second half of the 1990s have shown a therapeutic early effect of inhaled corticosteroids in acute asthma. However, systemic corticosteroids are considered the standard of care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of repeated doses of inhaled fluticasone with the standard treatment of systemic corticosteroids in adult patients with severe acute asthma.

METHODS

One hundred six patients (mean age, 33.5 +/- 8.8 years) were randomly assigned to receive fluticasone (3,000 microg/hour) administered through a metered-dose inhaler and spacer at 10-minute intervals for 3 hours, or 500 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone. In addition, all patients received inhaled albuterol and ipratropium bromide.

MAIN RESULTS

Subjects treated with fluticasone showed 30.5 and 46.4% greater improvements in PEF and FEV1, respectively, compared with the hydrocortisone group. The fluticasone group had better PEF and FEV1 at 120, 150, and 180 minutes (p < 0.05). Also, the fluticasone group showed higher rates of patients who obtained the discharge threshold at 90, 120, and 150 minutes. This therapeutic benefit was particularly evident in those patients with the most severe obstruction. Subjects with a baseline FEV1 of less than 1 L treated with fluticasone showed a significant increase in pulmonary function (p = 0.001) and a significant decrease in hospitalization rate (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of repeated doses of inhaled fluticasone was more effective than intravenous hydrocortisone and was associated with an early improvement. This therapeutic benefit was particularly evident in those patients with the most severe obstruction.

[Comparative efficacy of oral deflazacort versus oral prednisolone in children with moderate acute asthma]

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oral deflazacort versus oral prednisolone in acute moderate asthma in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomized, parallel group trial of children aged 6 to 14 years old with a diagnosis of asthma who presented to the pediatric emergency department for moderate asthma exacerbation. All patients were administered short-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists. The intervention groups received either oral deflazacort (1.5 mg/kg) or prednisolone (1 mg/kg) for 7 days. The primary outcome measure was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and secondary outcome measures were pulmonary symptom score index, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), hospitalization rate and the use of rescue beta2-agonists. Patients were evaluated at the start of treatment (visit 1), on day 2 (visit 2) and on day 7 (visit 3).

RESULTS

Of the 54 children enrolled, two were hospitalized on visit 2 (one from each group). Baseline clinical data were similar in both groups: FEV1: 53 and 51 %; bronchodilator test: 119 and 121 %; PEFR: 169 and 165 L/min; symptom score: 6 and 6.5 for the deflazacort and prednisolone groups, respectively. On visit 2, all measures improved: FEV1: 122.2 and 126.5 % (p < 0.05); PEFR: 164 and 149 L/min (p < 0.05); symptom score: -4.4 and -3.8 (p < 0.05), without significant differences between groups. On visit 3 all variables continued to show improvement: FEV1: 133.2 and 132.5 % (p < 0.05); PEFR: 1115.7 and 187.6 L/min (p < 0.05); symptom score: -5.4 and -5.9 (p < 0.05), without significant differences between groups. No adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Deflazacort and prednisolone show similar efficacy in improving pulmonary function and in producing clinical improvement in the management of acute moderate asthma in children.