Efficacy of nebulized fluticasone propionate compared with oral prednisolone in children with an acute exacerbation of asthma

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.

Indian Guidelines on Nebulization Therapy

Inhalational therapy, today, happens to be the mainstay of treatment in obstructive airway diseases (OADs), such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is also in the present, used in a variety of other pulmonary and even non-pulmonary disorders. Hand-held inhalation devices may often be difficult to use, particularly for children, elderly, debilitated or distressed patients. Nebulization therapy emerges as a good option in these cases besides being useful in the home care, emergency room and critical care settings. With so many advancements taking place in nebulizer technology; availability of a plethora of drug formulations for its use, and the widening scope of this therapy; medical practitioners, respiratory therapists, and other health care personnel face the challenge of choosing appropriate inhalation devices and drug formulations, besides their rational application and use in different clinical situations. Adequate maintenance of nebulizer equipment including their disinfection and storage are the other relevant issues requiring guidance. Injudicious and improper use of nebulizers and their poor maintenance can sometimes lead to serious health hazards, nosocomial infections, transmission of infection, and other adverse outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to have a proper national guideline on nebulization practices to bridge the knowledge gaps amongst various health care personnel involved in this practice. It will also serve as an educational and scientific resource for healthcare professionals, as well as promote future research by identifying neglected and ignored areas in this field. Such comprehensive guidelines on this subject have not been available in the country and the only available proper international guidelines were released in 1997 which have not been updated for a noticeably long period of over two decades, though many changes and advancements have taken place in this technology in the recent past. Much of nebulization practices in the present may not be evidence-based and even some of these, the way they are currently used, may be ineffective or even harmful. Recognizing the knowledge deficit and paucity of guidelines on the usage of nebulizers in various settings such as inpatient, out-patient, emergency room, critical care, and domiciliary use in India in a wide variety of indications to standardize nebulization practices and to address many other related issues; National College of Chest Physicians (India), commissioned a National task force consisting of eminent experts in the field of Pulmonary Medicine from different backgrounds and different parts of the country to review the available evidence from the medical literature on the scientific principles and clinical practices of nebulization therapy and to formulate evidence-based guidelines on it. The guideline is based on all possible literature that could be explored with the best available evidence and incorporating expert opinions. To support the guideline with high-quality evidence, a systematic search of the electronic databases was performed to identify the relevant studies, position papers, consensus reports, and recommendations published. Rating of the level of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation was done using the GRADE system. Six topics were identified, each given to one group of experts comprising of advisors, chairpersons, convenor and members, and such six groups (A-F) were formed and the consensus recommendations of each group was included as a section in the guidelines (Sections I to VI). The topics included were: A. Introduction, basic principles and technical aspects of nebulization, types of equipment, their choice, use, and maintenance B. Nebulization therapy in obstructive airway diseases C. Nebulization therapy in the intensive care unit D. Use of various drugs (other than bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) by nebulized route and miscellaneous uses of nebulization therapy E. Domiciliary/Home/Maintenance nebulization therapy; public & health care workers education, and F. Nebulization therapy in COVID-19 pandemic and in patients of other contagious viral respiratory infections (included later considering the crisis created due to COVID-19 pandemic). Various issues in different sections have been discussed in the form of questions, followed by point-wise evidence statements based on the existing knowledge, and recommendations have been formulated.

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.

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.

Nebulized Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma Treatment in Children 5 Years or Younger: A Systematic Review and Global Expert Analysis

Although nebulized corticosteroids (NebCSs) are a key treatment option for young children with asthma or viral-induced wheezing (VIW), there are no uniform recommendations on their best use. This systematic review aimed to clarify the role of NebCSs in children 5 years or younger for the management of acute asthma exacerbations, asthma maintenance therapy, and the treatment of VIW. Electronic databases were used to identify relevant English language articles with no date restrictions. Studies reporting efficacy data in children 5 years or younger, with a double-blind, placebo- or open-controlled, randomized design, and inclusion of 40 or more participants (no lower patient limit for VIW) were included. Ten articles on asthma exacerbation, 9 on asthma maintenance, and 7 on VIW were identified. Results showed NebCSs to be at least as efficacious as oral corticosteroids in the emergency room for the management of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. In asthma maintenance, nebulized budesonide, the agent of focus in all trials analyzed, significantly reduced the risk of further asthma exacerbations compared with placebo, cromolyn sodium, and montelukast. Intermittent NebCS treatment of VIW was as effective as continuous daily treatment. In summary, NebCSs are effective and well tolerated in patients 5 years or younger for the management of acute and chronic asthma.

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.

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.

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.

Corticosteroids in respiratory diseases in children

We review recent advances in the use of corticosteroids (CS) in pediatric lung disease. CS are frequently used, systemically or by inhalation. Their mechanisms of action in pulmonary diseases are ill defined. CS exert direct inhibitory effects on many inflammatory cells through genomic mechanisms. There is a time lag before clinical response, and the washout of effects is also prolonged. Prompt relief in some conditions, such as croup, may be related to airway mucosal vasoconstriction through a nongenomic mechanism. CS have proven beneficial roles in the treatment of asthma, croup, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and subglottic hemangioma. In some conditions, such as bronchiolitis, cystic fibrosis, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, their use is controversial and is not recommended routinely. In other conditions, such as tuberculosis, interstitial lung disease, acute lung aspiration, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, CS are often used empirically despite the lack of clear evidence of their benefit. New drug regimens, including the more flexible use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists in asthma, the lack of efficacy of oral corticosteroids in preschool children with acute wheeze, the severe complications of systemic dexamethasone used to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and thus more restricted use, and the beneficial effect of pulse high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or cystic fibrosis are among the major recent developments. There is concern about adverse effects, especially growth and adrenal suppression, induced by systemic CS in children. These have been reduced, but not eliminated, with the use of the inhaled route. The benefits must be weighed against the potential detrimental effects.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.

Single inhaler budesonide/formoterol in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Inhaled bronchodilators, particularly short-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists, and systemic glucocorticosteroids are effective treatments for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, in the treatment of these episodes there may be some advantages to the longer-acting agents in that there will be prolonged bronchodilation. Moreover, high doses of systemic glucocorticosteroids are associated with a significant risk of side effects. In the last few years, evidence is mounting that nebulized budesonide and inhaled formoterol might be an alternative to oral prednisolone and short-acting beta(2)-agonists, respectively, in the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD. Interestingly, some new data suggest that a combination therapy with single inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol may be an alternative to traditional therapy in the treatment of acute exacerbations of this disorder. However, since individual studies are typically statistically underpowered and are remarkably heterogeneous with regard to their conclusions, larger studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings and determine conclusively any impact of budesonide/formoterol combination in acutely ill COPD patients.

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.

Co-administration of salbutamol and fluticasone for emergency treatment of children with moderate acute asthma

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of nebulized therapy with salbutamol alone or in combination with fluticasone. In a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 150 children with moderate acute asthma were randomly assigned to receive by nebulizations either (i) three doses of salbutamol 30 microl/kg per dose, each dose administered every 15 min, (ii) three doses of salbutamol plus two doses of fluticasone 500 microg/dose at 15 and 30 min after first dose of salbutamol, or (iii) three doses of salbutamol/fluticasone 500 microg/dose, each combined dose administered every 15 min. Pulse oxymetry (SaO2), peak expiratory flow (PEF) and Wood et al. (Am J Dis Child, 123, 1972, 123) clinical scale were evaluated at baseline, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min after the first nebulization. Patients in the three groups significantly improved since 15 min after the first nebulization. We did not observe differences in the recovery of SaO2 and PEF among the three groups of treatment (p > 0.10). In group 3, children showed better clinical response at 120 min than the other two groups (p < 0.05). No significant adverse effects were observed with any treatment. To summarize, in children with acute moderate asthma, nebulized salbutamol at an accumulated dose of 90 mul/kg plus fluticasone at an accumulated dose of 1500 microg produced better clinical relief after 2 h. However, similar PEF and SaO2 responses were observed with salbutamol alone or in combination with different doses of fluticasone.

Systematic review of the dose-response relation of inhaled fluticasone propionate

AIMS

To examine the dose-response relation of inhaled fluticasone for both efficacy and adrenal function in children with asthma.

METHODS

Systematic review of double blind randomised dose-response studies of fluticasone in children of at least 4 weeks duration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

FEV1, morning peak expiratory flow, night awakenings, beta agonist use, major exacerbations, 12 or 24 hour urinary cortisol, peak plasma cortisol post-stimulation.

RESULTS

Seven studies of 1733 children with asthma met the inclusion criteria for efficacy. The dose-response curve for each efficacy outcome measure suggested that the response began to plateau between 100 and 200 microg per day with additional efficacy at the 400 microg per day dose shown in one study of severe asthmatics. Five studies of 1096 children with asthma met the inclusion criteria for assessment of adrenal function. The largest placebo controlled study of 437 children reported no difference in 24 hour urinary cortisol between placebo and fluticasone at doses of 100 and 200 microg per day. The non-placebo controlled study of 528 children reported significant suppression of overnight urinary cortisol levels with fluticasone at 400 compared with 200 microg per day.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient data to determine the dose-response of fluticasone in children at doses >400 microg per day. The dose-response curve for fluticasone appears to plateau between 100 and 200 microg per day for efficacy. There was additional efficacy at the 400 microg per day dose in children with severe asthma; however there was evidence of adrenal suppression at this dose.

Oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of persistent and acute asthma

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) when used to reduce daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) requirements in patients with severe persistent asthma and periodic requirements in patients with acute asthma exacerbations.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical studies of the OCS-sparing effects of ICSs were located by searching MEDLINE databases from 1966 onward using the terms oral, steroid, and asthma in combination with the generic names for each marketed ICS.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting on the use of ICSs to reduce OCS requirements in patients with persistent and acute asthma are included.

RESULTS

Clinical study results consistently show that ICSs significantly improve asthma control and reduce OCS requirements among adults, children, and infants with persistent asthma. A dose reduction or complete discontinuation of use of OCSs is possible in most patients without loss of asthma control. ICSs also can control asthma during acute asthma exacerbations and reduce the need for short courses of OCSs. With many ICSs, the reductions in OCS use are accompanied by recovery of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, indicating that the safety of asthma therapy is improved when OCS requirements are decreased with ICSs. Of the available ICSs that may reduce OCS needs, budesonide appears to be the most intensively studied.

CONCLUSIONS

ICSs can reduce OCS requirements in adults and children with persistent asthma and during acute asthma exacerbations. The reduced systemic corticosteroid activity associated with ICS treatment improves the overall safety of asthma therapy.

Treating exacerbations of asthma in children: the role of systemic corticosteroids

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of systemic corticosteroids to treat recurrent, acute asthma episodes in children, with a focus on the role of oral corticosteroids.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using the Medline database (January 1966-October 2002) and the Embase database (January 1980-August 2002).

RESULTS

The significant findings of 17 selected, controlled clinical trials of oral corticosteroids (OCSs) for acute exacerbations of asthma in children, compared with placebo or with other formulations of corticosteroids, can be summarized as follows: 1) OCSs are effective for the outpatient treatment of acute asthma, 2) pulmonary function tests may not be the best means of assessing the efficacy of OCSs for acute asthma, 3) early administration of OCSs for acute asthma reduces hospitalizations, 4) the critical factor for a positive outcome is early administration of the corticosteroid, and 5) OCSs are preferred for the outpatient treatment of acute asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment of acute asthma symptoms with OCSs in children with a pattern of recurrent acute asthma may decrease the severity of acute asthma episodes and reduce the likelihood of subsequent relapses. Attention should be given to identifying these children and standardizing a treatment approach based on accepted, consistent definitions of what constitutes an asthma exacerbation and recurrence. A suggested protocol is described.

Treatment of allergic asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and coughing, particularly at night or in the early morning. The airway inflammation also increases bronchial hyperresponsiveness to a variety of stimuli. After evaluation that includes spirometry, patients with intermittent asthma are treated with a short-acting bronchodilator on an as-needed basis. Patients with persistent asthma should receive inhaled corticosteroids as first-line anti-inflammatory therapy and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists as preferred adjunctive therapy. Leukotriene modifiers can be used as maintenance therapy in patients with mild persistent asthma, or added to the regimen of patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma. In patients with asthma and concomitant allergic rhinitis, antihistamines may be useful as adjunctive therapy.

HPA-axis effects of nebulised fluticasone propionate compared with oral prednisolone in childhood asthma

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 7 days nebulised fluticasone propionate (FP) with oral prednisolone on 24-h urinary-free cortisol excretion, systemic exposure and safety. This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study. Thirty-one children (19 male, 12 female, mean age 8 years) with stable asthma were randomly assigned to 7 days treatment with either FP Nebules (2 x 0.5 mg/2 ml bd) or prednisolone tablets once daily (2 mg/kg/day for 4 days [maximum 40 mg] followed by 1 mg/kg/day or half the original dose for 3 days [maximum 20 mg]). After a 2-4 week washout period, patients received the second treatment for 7 days, followed by a 2-week follow-up visit. The primary outcome measure was 24-h urinary-free cortisol concentrations corrected for creatinine. Nebulised FP (1 mg bd) had significantly less effect on 24-h urinary-free cortisol excretion than oral prednisolone (8.9 ng/ml for FP and 5.0 ng/ml for prednisolone, P = 0.001). Systemic exposure to FP was also low. In conclusion, FP Nebules had significantly less effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function than oral prednisolone in asthmatic children when used at doses recommended for the treatment of an acute exacerbation of asthma.

Management of children with severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department

Although acute asthma is a very common cause of emergency department visits in children, there is as yet insufficient evidence for the establishment of a standardized treatment protocol. The aim of this review is to describe updated information on the management of asthma exacerbations in the pediatric emergency department. Oxygen is the first-line treatment of acute asthma exacerbations in the emergency department to control hypoxemia. It is accompanied by the administration of beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists followed by corticosteroids. beta(2)-Adrenoceptor agonists have traditionally been administered by nebulization, although spacers have recently been introduced and proven, in many cases, to be as effective as nebulization. Oral prednisolone, with its reliability, simplicity, convenience and low cost, should remain the treatment of choice for the most severe asthma exacerbations, when the lung airways are extremely contracted and filled with secretions. Recently, several studies have shown that high-dose inhaled corticosteroids are at least as effective as oral corticosteroids in controlling moderate to severe asthma attacks in children and therefore should be considered an alternative treatment to oral corticosteroids in moderate to severe asthma attacks. Studies of other drugs have shown that ipratropium bromide may be given only in addition to beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists; theophylline has no additional benefit, and magnesium sulfate has no clear advantage. Comprehensive asthma management should also include asthma education, measures to prevent asthma triggers, and training in the use of inhalers and spacers. Proper management will avoid most asthma attacks and reduce admission and readmission to emergency departments.

Replacement of oral corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma following emergency department discharge: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Oral corticosteroids (CS) are standard treatment for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) after treatment for acute asthma. Several recent, relatively small trials have investigated the replacement of CS with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with varied results and conclusions. This systematic review examined the effect of using ICS in place of CS on outcomes in this setting.

METHODS

Only randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies in which patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and on discharge compared ICS therapy to standard CS therapy, were eligible for inclusion. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, searching abstracts and bibliographies, and contacting primary authors and pharmaceutical companies. Data were extracted and methodologic quality assessed independently by two reviewers, and missing data were obtained from authors.

RESULTS

Seven trials, involving a total of 1,204 patients, compared high-dose ICS therapy vs CS therapy after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between the treatments for relapse rates (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.52) or in the secondary outcomes of beta-agonist use, symptoms, or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to prove equivalence between the treatments, and severe asthmatics were excluded from these trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as CS therapy when used in mild asthmatics on ED discharge; however, there is a significant possibility of a type II error in drawing this conclusion.

Inhaled steroids in acute asthma following emergency department discharge

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the emergency department (ED).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by hand searching of 20 respiratory journals. In addition, abstracts from conferences were searched; primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs or quasi RCTs were eligible for inclusion. 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 (CS). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion, and methodological quality - to "expand" the search. We didn't include any in the end)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers if the authors were unable to verify the validity of information. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager 4.0.4.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were selected for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus CS Vs CS therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to CS therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced, but not significantly, with the addition of ICS therapy (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.02). As well, no differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores, or adverse effects. Seven trials, involving a total of 1204 patients, compared high-dose ICS therapy alone Vs CS therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone and CS therapy alone for relapse rates (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.52) or in the secondary outcomes of beta-agonist use, symptoms, or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to confidently exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior, and severe asthmatics were excluded from these trials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard CS therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as CS therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, there is a significant possibility of a type II error in drawing this conclusion. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment in the ED or following ED discharge.