Comparison of the efficacy of ciclesonide with that of budesonide in mild to moderate asthma patients after step-down therapy: a randomised parallel-group study

Real-life effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol after switching from fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol therapy in patients with symptomatic asthma: Relvar Ellipta for Real Asthma Control Study (RERACS study)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the efficacy of switching therapy from fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SM) or budesonide/formoterol (BD/FM) to fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) at the equivalent corticosteroid dose in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A prospective, 3-month, open-label, parallel group, switching therapy trial was performed in symptomatic asthma patients under routine management. Patients using 1 puff of FP 250 µg/SM 50 µg b.i.d or 2 puffs of BD 160 µg/FM 4.5 µg b.i.d were switched to FF 100 µg/VI 25 µg once daily, while patients using 1 puff of FP 500 µg/SM 50 µg b.i.d or 4 puffs of BD 160/FM b.i.d was switched to FF 200 µg/VI 25 µg once daily. The primary outcome was improvement of the predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second % (%FEV1), while secondary outcomes were improvement of asthma symptoms evaluated by the asthma control test (ACT) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO).

RESULTS

The %FEV1 was improved at 4 weeks after switching, and the improvement was maintained until 12 weeks. ACT also improved after switching. Patients with ACT <20 before switching showed greater improvement of symptoms at 4 weeks and 62% had an ACT score >20. FeNO decreased from 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic asthma patients showing insufficient control, improvement of asthma was obtained by switching to FF/VI at the equivalent corticosteroid dose accompanied with the improvement of biomarkers. FF/VI can be a useful option for better control of asthma because of its high efficacy, long duration of action, and delivery via a single-action device.

Step-up and step-down treatments for optimal asthma control in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To review therapeutic options for stepwise management of pediatric asthma in the context of this population's unique needs such as potential effects of asthma, treatments, or both on growth and psychosocial development, and caregiver involvement.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We conducted PubMed searches to identify relevant articles then reviewed resultant articles, guidelines for asthma management in children, and articles from personal files.

RESULTS

Stepwise management of asthma, similar to adults, is recommended for children in current global and US guidelines. Treatment may be stepped up or stepped down temporarily or long-term based on response over time. Inhaled corticosteroids remain the recommended treatment for persistent childhood asthma and any potential small effects on growth are considered relatively minor compared with their benefit. Controller medication options for patients <18 years old are limited, especially for Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 2-5. The long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist tiotropium (Steps 4/5, patients aged ≥12 years) and in certain circumstances (Step 5), anti-immunoglobulin E (aged ≥6 years) and interleukin-5 antibodies (aged ≥12 years) are newer treatment options. Tiotropium is indicated in the United States and Europe for patients ≥6 years old. Stepping down treatment, which is recommended but infrequently practiced, can maintain symptom control and minimize adverse events while substantially reducing costs. Patient education and better monitoring remain important for self-management and optimum outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A need exists to target individual treatment goals for children with asthma by using step-up and step-down approaches to maximize treatment benefits and minimize potential adverse effects.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Emerging corticosteroid agonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is one of the most frequent chronic diseases worldwide. For decades, asthma has been treated with bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). However, adverse effects of ICS and disease heterogeneity necessitate improvements in the existing treatment regimes. Recently approved ICS show improved pharmocodynamic properties. Nevertheless, emerging drugs acting on the same receptor as the ICS, glucocorticoid receptor agonists (GRAs), are under current research. These drugs exhibit selective action on the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), which may improve their adverse effect profile, compared to the currently approved ICS that act unselectively on the GR.

AREAS COVERED

The present article reviews emerging GRAs for the treatment of asthma. Furthermore, the more recently approved ICS with improved safety profiles are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Compared with drugs acting on other pathological pathways, research in GRAs for asthma is sparse. However, a few promising agents acting selectively on the GR are currently under investigation and may reach approval for asthma treatment. These drugs exhibit improved pharmacodynamic properties due to selectivity in the mechanism of action, including promotion of transrepression and reduction of transactivation. However, competition from already approved ICS and other emerging treatment options may lead to cessation of development of the new GRAs.