State of the art: therapeutic controversies in severe acute asthma

Dexamethasone Versus Prednisone in Children Hospitalized for Acute Asthma Exacerbations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Extensive literature supports using dexamethasone (DEX) in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations; however, only limited studies have assessed this in hospitalized children. In this study, we evaluate the outcomes of DEX versus prednisone/prednisolone (PRED) use in children hospitalized for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations.

METHODS

This multisite retrospective cohort study included children between 3 and 21 years of age hospitalized to a tertiary care children's hospital system between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, with a primary discharge diagnosis of acute asthma exacerbation or status asthmaticus. Primary study outcome was mean hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included PICU transfers during initial hospitalization and ED revisits and hospital readmissions within 10 days after discharge. Generalized linear models were used to model logged LOS as a function of steroid and demographic and clinical covariates. The analysis was stratified by initial steroid timing.

RESULTS

Of the 1410 children included, 981 received only DEX and 429 received only PRED. For children who started oral steroids after hospital arrival, DEX cohort had a significantly shorter adjusted mean hospital LOS (DEX 24.43 hours versus PRED 29.38 hours; P = .03). For children who started oral steroids before hospital arrival, LOS did not significantly differ (DEX 26.72 hours versus PRED 25.20 hours; P = .45). Rates of PICU transfers, ED revisits, and hospital readmissions were uncommon events.

CONCLUSION

Children hospitalized with mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations have significantly shorter hospital LOS when starting DEX rather than PRED on admission.

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.

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.

Acute asthma exacerbations: phenotypes and management

Acute asthma presentations account for 2 million emergency department visits annually in the United States. The causes for these presentations range from undertreated or unrecognized disease, to exacerbations of stable disease usually caused by recent exposure to triggers of exacerbations, to severe disease states unresponsive to conventional therapy. Indeed, many of these patients often exhibit both acute and chronic markers of severe asthma. The recognition of these phenotypes of acute asthma can enhance the management of these patients in acute and emergency settings. This article describes these potential phenotypes, reviews current therapies, and addresses the challenges of variability of therapeutic response in acute asthma.

Dyspnea

When evaluating a dyspneic patient in the office, a quick initial assessment of the airway, breathing, and circulation, while gathering a brief history and focused physical examination are necessary. Most often, an acute cardiopulmonary disorder, such as CHF, cardiac ischemia, pneumonia, asthma, or COPD exacerbation, can be identified and treated. Stable patients who improve can be sent home, but those in acute distress with unstable or impending unstable conditions need to be transferred emergently to definitive care. Because of the difficult logistics involved in attempting to work up an outpatient for new onset of SOB, some patients will need to be transferred to the nearest ED for a definitive diagnosis.

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 may also be beneficial in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The search is considered updated to February of 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs or quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies were included if patients presented with acute asthma to the ED or its equivalent, and were treated with inhaled corticosteroids or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two reviewers independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers 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.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were selected for inclusion, but data were not available for one of them. In the seven usable trials, (4 adult, 3 paediatric), a total of 376 patients were studied (191 with inhaled corticosteroids, 185 without). Patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57). This benefit was evident in the subgroup of patients not receiving concomitant systemic steroids (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.53). Patients receiving concomitant systemic steroids showed a similar, but non-significant, trend towards reduced admissions compared to placebo treatment (OR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.12). Patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids also demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flows (PEFR WMD: 8%; 95% CI: 3, 13 %) and forced expiratory volumes (FEV1 WMD: 5%; 95% CI: 0.4, 10 %). The treatment was well tolerated, with few reported adverse side effects. A secondary analysis compared inhaled corticosteroids alone vs systemic steroids alone; in the four trials included, there was significant heterogeneity between the study results for admission rates which precluded meaningful pooling of the study results.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled steroids reduced admission rates in patients with acute asthma, but it is unclear if there is a benefit of inhaled corticosteroids when used in addition to systemic corticosteroids. There is insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids result in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids alone are as effective as systemic steroids. Further research is needed to clarify if there is a benefit of inhaled corticosteroids when used in addition to systemic steroids.

A proposal for a practical treatment guideline designed for the initial two-hours of the management of patients with acute severe asthma and COPD using the principles of evidence-based medicine

We have proposed a clinical treatment guideline for the management of acute, severe asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease (COPD) using the principles of evidence-based medicine. The content is based upon practical clinical issues in need of consensus. A previous study has shown that this particular area is in serious need of quality control. Based on a strict 2 h time schedule with a unified treatment plan for both asthma and COPD, it is possible to secure for the patients a well-documented medical therapy promoting decision-making and clarification of the patient within this time limit. A summary of the statements is presented in a one-page, user-friendly format in order to cope with the clinician's need of having access to published evidence quickly and easily. A website (www.phanareth.dk or a website provided by Respiratory Medicine) has been established providing regular updates. A strategy for the implementation and the evaluation process has been planned after the publication of this paper. We believe this approach to be an important step towards an increase in the quality of guidelines and also a tool to make "guideline writers" aware of the responsibility of making their recommendations work.

The effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma: a meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are of proven benefit in the treatment of chronic asthma; however, their role in the management of acute asthma is unclear.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving children or adults treated in the emergency department for acute asthma with or without the addition of ICSs. Outcome measures included hospital admission, pulmonary function tests, and side effects.

RESULTS

Seven trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. ICSs versus placebo were compared; data were not available on 1 of these trials. In the remaining 6 trials, a total of 352 patients were studied (179 ICS-treated and 173 non-ICS-treated patients). Two trials compared ICSs plus systemic corticosteroids versus placebo plus systemic corticosteroids; 4 trials compared ICSs versus placebo. Patients treated with ICSs were less likely to be admitted to the hospital (odds ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.57) and showed small improvements in peak expiratory flows (weighted mean difference 8%; 95% CI 3% to 13%) Overall, the treatment was well tolerated, with few reports of adverse side effects. A secondary analysis compared ICSs alone versus systemic corticosteroids alone; in the 4 included trials, significant heterogeneity between the study results for admission rates precluded meaningful pooling of admission data.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of decreased admission rates for patients with acute asthma treated with ICSs. However, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function when used in acute asthma, and there is insufficient evidence that ICSs alone are as effective as systemic corticosteroids.

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.