Daily versus as-needed inhaled corticosteroid for mild persistent asthma (The Helsinki early intervention childhood asthma study)

Establishing the best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids: the EINSTEIN systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data

Background

There is no clear preferential option for initial step-up of treatment for children with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid.

Objectives

Evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to use in children with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid; identify and evaluate the potential for treatment effect modification to optimise treatment delivery; assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments.

Methods

Systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis. Studies were eligible if they were parallel or crossover randomised controlled trials comparing at least one of the pharmacological treatments of interest in participants aged < 18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any dose inhaled corticosteroid alone. We searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series. Primary outcomes: exacerbation and asthma control. Secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life, mortality, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, adverse events, hospital admissions, symptoms (not analysed). We assessed the Risk Of Bias using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias tool and carried out Bayesian meta-analyses, network meta-analysis and network meta-regression, including treatment by covariate (age, sex, ethnicity, eczema, eosinophilia, asthma severity) interactions. A Markov decision-analytic model with a 12-month time horizon, which adopted the perspective of the National Health Service and Personal Social Services in the United Kingdom, was developed to compare alternative treatments. Cost-effectiveness was based on incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years gained, with uncertainty considered in one-way, structural and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

We identified and screened 4708 publications from the search and confirmed 144 randomised controlled trials as eligible. We obtained individual participant data from 29 trials (5381 participants) and extracted limited aggregate data from a further 19 trials. The majority of trials had low risk of bias. The network meta-analysis suggests that medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting β2-agonist is the preferred treatment for reducing odds of exacerbation [odds ratio 95% credibility interval: 0.43 (0.20 to 0.92) vs. low-dose inhaled corticosteroid; 40 studies, 8168 patients] and increasing forced expiratory volume in 1 second [mean difference 95% credibility interval: 0.71 (0.35 to 1.06) vs. low-dose inhaled corticosteroid; 23 studies, 2518 patients] while leukotriene receptor antagonist alone is the least preferred. No clear differences were found for asthma control (16 studies, 3027 patients). Limited pairwise analyses suggest some improvement in health-related quality of life for medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid versus inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting β2-agonist [two studies, paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire, mean difference 95% credibility interval: 0.91 (0.29 to 1.53)]. The rate of hospitalisation due to an asthma attack ranged from 0.5% to 2.7% of patients across five trials. Slightly fewer patients reported neurological disorders (mild/moderate) on inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting β2-agonist versus inhaled corticosteroid + leukotriene receptor antagonist [odds ratio 95% confidence interval: 0.09 (0.01 to 0.82), one study]. There were no deaths recorded. We did not find convincing, consistent evidence to suggest that age, sex, ethnicity, eczema, eosinophilia, asthma severity would be regarded as an effect modifier. The economic analysis indicated that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid was the most cost-effective treatment option while medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid (alone and + long-acting β2-agonist) was associated with the highest number of quality-adjusted life-years, but their incremental cost-effectiveness exceeded the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold.

Discussion

Medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting β2-agonist is recommended for children with asthma that is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroid alone; leukotriene receptor antagonist alone should be avoided. We could not include data from 67% of the eligible trials, conclusions should therefore be viewed with some caution.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019127599.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/110/16) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Budesonide Attains Its Wide Clinical Profile by Alternative Kinetics

The introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) changed over a few decades the treatment focus of mild-to-moderate asthma from bronchodilation to reduction in inflammation. This was achieved by inhaling a suitable corticosteroid (CS), giving a high, protracted airway concentration at a low total dose, thereby better combining efficacy and tolerance than oral therapy. Successful trials with the potent, lipophilic "skin" CS beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) paved the way, suggesting that ICSs require a very low water solubility, prolonging their intraluminal dissolution within airways. The subsequent ICS development, with resulting clinical landmarks, is exemplified here with budesonide (BUD), showing that a similar efficacy/safety relationship is achievable by partly alternative mechanisms. BUD is much less lipophilic, giving it a 100-fold higher water solubility than BDP and later developed ICSs, leading to its more rapid intraluminal dissolution and faster airway and systemic uptake rates. In airway tissue, a BUD fraction is reversibly esterified to intracellular fatty acids, a lipophilic conjugate, which prolongs airway efficacy. Another mechanism is that the rapidly absorbed bulk fraction, via short plasma peaks, adds anti-inflammatory activity at the blood and bone marrow levels. Importantly, these plasma peaks are too short to provoke systemic adverse actions. Controlled clinical trials with BUD changed the use of ICS from a last resort to first-line treatment. Starting ICS treatment immediately after diagnosis ("early intervention") became a landmark for BUD. An established dose response made BUD suitable for the treatment of patients with all degrees of asthma severity. With the development of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FORM), BUD contributed to the widely used BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Recent studies demonstrated the value of BUD/FORM as a generally recommended as-needed therapy for asthma ("anti-inflammatory reliever", AIR). These abovementioned qualities have all influenced international asthma management and treatment guidelines.

2022 Year in Review: Pediatric Asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by variable, reversible airway obstruction and hyper-responsive airways. There is a high economic burden due to a child having poorly controlled asthma with one or more asthma exacerbations resulting in an emergency department visit or hospitalization in a year. Publications on diagnosis, treatment, and management of pediatric asthma are ongoing with over 2,549 papers published from January-November 2022. The intent of this paper is to summarize 8 key topics that have prompted discussions with local, regional, and national asthma experts due to a shift in clinical practice or lessons learned from the recent pandemic that may have future application.

Comparison of National and Global Asthma Management Guiding Documents

Asthma is a common chronic disease that affects both adults and children, and that continues to have a high economic burden. Asthma management guidelines were first developed nearly 30 years ago to standardize care, maintain asthma control, improve quality of life, maintain normal lung function, prevent exacerbations, and prevent asthma mortality. The two most common asthma guidelines used today were developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Expert Panel Working Group and the Global Initiative for Asthma Science Committee. Both guiding documents use scientific methodology to standardize their approach for formulating recommendations based on pertinent literature. Before the 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (Expert Panel Report 4), nothing had been released since the 2007 guidelines, whereas the Global Initiative for Asthma publishes updates annually. Although each of these asthma strategies is similar, there are some noted differences. Over the years, the focus of asthma treatment has shifted from acute to chronic management. Frontline respiratory therapists and other health-care providers should have a good understanding of these 2 guiding references and how they can impact acute and chronic asthma management. The primary focus of this narrative is to look at the similarities and differences of these 2 guiding documents as they pertain to the 6 key questions identified by the Expert Panel of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.

Use of inhaled corticosteroids on an intermittent or as-needed basis in pediatric asthma: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the principal findings of all available studies that have evaluated the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on an intermittent or as-needed basis as an add-on therapy to short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) or fast-acting β2-agonists (FABAs) in pediatric asthmatic patients. Studies could either include or omit the use of ICS during stable periods of the disease.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to February 2021.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant articles in the literature published by February 2021.

RESULTS

Of 294 references identified, 14 studies were included. The use of ICS on an intermittent or as-needed basis (as an add-on therapy to SABAs) has been shown to be more effective than treatment with SABA alone and to be similarly or less effective compared to regular daily ICS administration. Furthermore, strategies involving increasing the dose of ICS only when needed (as an add-on therapy to formoterol, a FABA) and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease (i.e. single maintenance and reliever therapy, SMART) have been shown to be similarly or more effective than comparators.

CONCLUSION

The use of ICS on an intermittent or as-needed basis as an add-on therapy to SABAs or FABAs, with or without ICS use during stable periods of the disease in pediatric asthmatic patients, encompasses several effective treatment strategies.

Understanding the Updates in the Asthma Guidelines

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that affects millions of Americans, with variable symptoms of bronchospasm and obstruction among individuals over time. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) published the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines based on the latest research since the 2007 Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3). The following article reviews the 21 new recommendations on the six core topics in asthma: use of intermittent inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy, use of the fractional exhaled nitric oxide test in asthma diagnosis and monitoring, indoor allergen mitigation, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate recommendations as strong or conditional based on the evidence. The recommendations were based on systematic reviews of the literature and focused on patient-centered critical outcomes of asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and asthma-related quality of life. Understanding the recommendations with consideration of individual values through shared decision-making may improve asthma outcomes.

As-Needed Use of Short-Acting β2-Agonists Alone Versus As-Needed Use of Short-Acting β2-Agonists Plus Inhaled Corticosteroids in Pediatric Patients With Mild Intermittent (Step 1) Asthma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of the as-needed use of short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for treating children with mild intermittent asthma has been demonstrated, evidence of its cost-effectiveness is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of the as-needed use of SABAs alone versus the as-needed use of SABAs plus ICS in children 5 to 11 years old with mild intermittent (step 1) asthma but suffering from an exacerbation of asthma symptoms.

METHODS

A decision-analysis model was adapted. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national health care system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was a first course of prednisone for an asthma exacerbation (AE).

RESULTS

Compared with the use of SABAs alone, the as-needed use of SABAs plus ICS was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$17.99 vs US$27.94 mean cost per patient) and a higher probability of a lack of a requirement for a first course of prednisone (0.6500 vs 0.5100), thus showing dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, compared with the use of albuterol alone, the use of beclomethasone dipropionate added to albuterol as needed for symptom relief is cost-effective in children 5 to 11 years old with mild intermittent (step 1) asthma, because it involves a higher probability of a lack of a requirement for prednisone for AE at lower total treatment costs.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

[Effect of intermittent versus daily inhalation of budesonide on pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in children with mild persistent asthma]

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of intermittent versus daily inhalation of budesonide on pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in children with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

A total of 120 children, aged 6-14 years, with mild persistent asthma who attended the hospital from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled. The children were divided into an intermittent inhalation group with 60 children (inhalation of budesonide 200 μg/day for 6 weeks when symptoms of asthma appeared) and a daily inhalation group with 60 children (continuous inhalation of budesonide 200 μg/day) by stratified randomization. The children were followed up at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 of treatment. The two groups were compared in terms of baseline data, changes in FeNO and pulmonary function parameters, amount of glucocorticoid used, number of asthma attacks, and asthma control.

RESULTS

At the start of treatment, there were no significant differences in baseline data, FeNO, and pulmonary function between the two groups (P>0.05). Over the time of treatment, FeNO gradually decreased and pulmonary function parameters were gradually improved in both groups (P<0.001). Compared with the intermittent inhalation group, the daily inhalation group had a better effect in reducing FeNO and increasing the predicted percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%pred) (P<0.001). The inhalation method and treatment time had an interaction effect on FeNO and pulmonary function parameters (P<0.001). In the daily inhalation group, FeNO and lung function parameters were improved rapidly and stabilized after 3 months of treatment, while those in the intermittent inhalation group stabilized after 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, there were no significant differences in the increases in body height and body weight and the degree of disease control between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the daily inhalation group, the intermittent inhalation group had a significantly lower amount of budesonide inhaled (P<0.05) and a significantly higher number of asthma attacks (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent inhalation and daily inhalation of budesonide can achieve the same level of asthma control in children with mild persistent asthma and both have no influence on the increases in body height and body weight. Daily inhalation of budesonide can produce a better efficiency in reduing FeNO and increasing FEV1%pred. Although intermittent inhalation can reduce the amount of glucocorticoid used, it may lead to a higher risk of asthma attacks.

[Effect of intermittent versus daily inhalation of budesonide on pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in children with mild persistent asthma]

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of intermittent versus daily inhalation of budesonide on pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in children with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

A total of 120 children, aged 6-14 years, with mild persistent asthma who attended the hospital from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled. The children were divided into an intermittent inhalation group with 60 children (inhalation of budesonide 200 μg/day for 6 weeks when symptoms of asthma appeared) and a daily inhalation group with 60 children (continuous inhalation of budesonide 200 μg/day) by stratified randomization. The children were followed up at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 of treatment. The two groups were compared in terms of baseline data, changes in FeNO and pulmonary function parameters, amount of glucocorticoid used, number of asthma attacks, and asthma control.

RESULTS

At the start of treatment, there were no significant differences in baseline data, FeNO, and pulmonary function between the two groups (P>0.05). Over the time of treatment, FeNO gradually decreased and pulmonary function parameters were gradually improved in both groups (P<0.001). Compared with the intermittent inhalation group, the daily inhalation group had a better effect in reducing FeNO and increasing the predicted percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%pred) (P<0.001). The inhalation method and treatment time had an interaction effect on FeNO and pulmonary function parameters (P<0.001). In the daily inhalation group, FeNO and lung function parameters were improved rapidly and stabilized after 3 months of treatment, while those in the intermittent inhalation group stabilized after 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, there were no significant differences in the increases in body height and body weight and the degree of disease control between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the daily inhalation group, the intermittent inhalation group had a significantly lower amount of budesonide inhaled (P<0.05) and a significantly higher number of asthma attacks (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent inhalation and daily inhalation of budesonide can achieve the same level of asthma control in children with mild persistent asthma and both have no influence on the increases in body height and body weight. Daily inhalation of budesonide can produce a better efficiency in reduing FeNO and increasing FEV1%pred. Although intermittent inhalation can reduce the amount of glucocorticoid used, it may lead to a higher risk of asthma attacks.

The Global Initiative for Asthma 2019 recommendation for mild asthma - A critique

Recognising that mild asthmatics are at risk of exacerbations and mortality, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) issued an updated strategy in 2019. This was premised on two studies culminating in their recommendation that mild asthma should be treated by using a combination of a rapid and long-acting beta 2 agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) administered as required. Their rationale is, however, debatable, as the studies actually showed that regular daily ICS administration was more effective for a number of asthma control endpoints. A patient-driven treatment strategy is also questionable, as there are a number of concerns about behaviour of patients suffering from asthma and perception of airway narrowing that should trigger medication intake but in fact does not do so. These deficiencies also influence a similar maintenance and reliever treatment (MART) approach that would be suboptimal. Intermittent ICS regimens are also inferior when compared to regular treatment. Not all asthmatics respond to the same dose of ICS. The best way to manage asthma is by adopting a step-up ICS approach, to encompass varying disease severity, with a long-acting beta agonist taken on a daily basis, ideally in a single combination inhaler.

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β2-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β2-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

The impact of asthma and its treatment on growth: an evidence-based review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of asthma and its treatment (inhaled corticosteroids and other control medications) on growth.

DATA SOURCES

The authors searched PubMed (up to August 24, 2018) and screened the reference lists of retrieved articles. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis were selected. If there was no such article, the authors selected either randomized clinical trials or observational studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 37 articles were included in this review. The findings from 21 studies suggest that asthma per se, especially more severe and/or uncontrolled cases, can transitorily impair child's growth. Two Cochrane reviews of randomized clinical trials showed a small mean reduction in linear growth (-0.91cm/year for beclomethasone, -0.59cm/year for budesonide, and -0.39cm/year for fluticasone) in the first year of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in prepubertal children with persistent asthma. The effects were likely to be molecule- and dose-dependent. A recent review showed that most of "real-life" observational studies had not found significant effects of inhaled corticosteroids on growth in asthmatic children. Fifteen studies showed that the maintenance systemic corticosteroids could cause a dose-dependent growth suppression in children with severe asthma, but other controllers (cromones, montelukast, salmeterol, and theophylline) had no significant adverse effects no growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe and/or uncontrolled asthma can transitorily impair child's growth. Regular use of inhaled corticosteroids may cause a small reduction in linear growth in children with asthma, but the well-established benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in controlling asthma outweigh the potential adverse effects on growth. Use of the minimally effective dose of inhaled corticosteroids and regular monitoring of child's height during inhaled corticosteroids therapy are recommended.

On-demand intermittent beclomethasone is effective for mild asthma in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids are widely recommended for mild persistent asthma. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the intermittent use of beclomethasone as an alternative treatment for mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this 16-week trial, children aged 6-18 years were evaluated. Subjects in the continuous treatment arm of the study received 500 μg/day of beclomethasone, whereas the intermittent ones were given 1000 μg/day (250 μg every 6 h) in combination with albuterol for 7 days upon exacerbations or worsening of symptoms. Primary outcome (i.e., treatment failure) was the occurrence of any asthma exacerbation requiring prednisone, and co-secondary outcomes were the mean/median differences for both, (1) the pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (% predicted) and (2) asthma control test (ACT/cACT) scores, from randomization to the last follow-up visit, and beclomethasone and albuterol consumption.

RESULTS

Ninety-four subjects from each treatment arm were included. They were comparable regarding all baseline characteristics; prednisone was used by 10 (10.6%) and 7 (7.4%) patients, respectively (95% CI - 6.1 to 12.6%, for the difference; p = 0.47). Statistical analysis showed no statistically significant differences with respect to both FEV1 (p = 0.39) and ACT/cACT scores (p = 0.38). As assessed through canister weighting, children used from 0.5 to 0.7 and from 1.6 to 1.8 puffs per day of beclomethasone in the intermittent and continuous regimens, respectively. Regarding albuterol, received 0.3-0.4 (intermittent) and 0.1-0.2 (continuous) inhalations per day. There were no relevant clinical or functional differences between the two treatment regimens.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians might consider intermittent inhaled steroid therapy as a therapeutic regimen for mild persistent asthma.Trial registration The Portuguese and English versions of the study protocol were submitted, approved, and registered in the Brazilian Network Platform for Clinical Trials (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br) under the primary identifier number "RBR-3gbyhk". This platform is part of the Primary Registries in the World Health Organization Registry Network, where the trial is registered under the following Universal Trial Number: 1111-1149-4774.

[Inhaled corticosteroids: Which regimens are appropriate?]

Inhaled corticosteroids are the cornerstone of asthma management. Inhaled corticosteroid regimens differ slightly in various international guidelines on asthma management but are based on the principles of continuous treatment and titration to the lowest effective dose. Several recent studies, nevertheless, appear to demonstrate the potential value of preemptive or "pro re nata" regimens in infants and children. These studies were included in GINA 2015 for children 5 years of age and younger in whom discontinuous treatment is proposed as a second-line option. Should we change our practices after a critical reading of these studies?

Intermittent steroid inhalation for the treatment of childhood asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids have long been considered a mainstay of therapy for asthma in children. However, concerns over long-term side effects of chronic steroid administration have led providers to turn to intermittent dosing of these medications in an attempt to treat exacerbations while limiting total corticosteroid received. The data have been somewhat mixed in this area, likely at least partially due to the difficulty providers have in classifying asthma phenotypes in young children. This review will analyze the evidence for chronic daily inhaled corticosteroid use, intermittent inhaled corticosteroid use, and dynamic dosing approaches utilizing inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist combination therapy.

Cost-utility analysis of daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroids in mild-persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Despite the many benefits that have been demonstrated by the continuous administration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in persistent asthma, a new strategy for mild-asthma is emerging, consisting of using intermittent or as-needed ICS treatment in conjunction with short-acting beta2 agonists in response to symptoms. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing these two therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to intermittent ICS, daily therapy with ICS had lower costs (US$437.02 vs. 585.03 and US$704.62 vs. 749.81 average cost per patient over 12 months for school children and preschoolers, respectively), and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9629 vs. 0.9392 QALYs and 0.9238 vs. 0.9130 QALYS for school children and preschoolers, respectively), resulting in daily therapy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis shows that compared to intermittent therapy, daily therapy with ICS for treating pediatric patients with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma is a dominant strategy (more cost effective), because it showed a greater gain in QALYs with lower total treatment costs.

Intermittent inhaled corticosteroid therapy versus placebo for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

International guidelines advocate using daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma. However, in real world clinical settings, these medicines are often used at irregular intervals by patients. Recent evidence suggests that the use of intermittent ICS, with treatment initiated at the time of early symptoms, may still have benefits for reducing the severity of an asthma exacerbation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent ICS versus placebo in the management of children and adults diagnosed with, or suspected to have, symptoms of mild persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), the ClinicalTrials.gov website and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal in March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus placebo in children and adults with symptoms of persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the risk of asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, and withdrawal rates. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (representing 490 preschool children, 145 school-aged children and 240 adults) met the inclusion criteria. Study durations were 12 to 52 weeks. Results for preschool children were presented in a separate analysis as this represents a distinct clinical condition, not necessarily related to the development of long term asthma.There was a reduction in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids in older children (145 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 1.12, low quality evidence) and adults with asthma (240 participants, OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95, low quality evidence). These analyses were each based on the findings of a single study. No group difference was observed in the risk of serious adverse health events (385 participants; OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 7.25, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the placebo group, there was an insufficient number of participants to make firm conclusions whether the intermittent ICS group displayed any reduction in the rate of hospitalisations, day time and night time symptoms scores, or adverse events. Lung function tests reported by a single study favoured the use of ICS. There was no significant group difference in growth rate of children, or overall withdrawals.In preschool children with frequent wheezing episodes, the use of intermittent ICS at the onset of early symptoms reduced the likelihood of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids by half (490 participants; OR: 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73, moderate quality evidence with minimal heterogeneity). Intermittent therapy was associated with fewer serious adverse events (439 participants; OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02, low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in hospitalisations or in a single study measuring parent perceived quality of life. However, intermittent therapy was associated with improvements in both day time and night time symptoms. There was no increase in the rates of withdrawals, and overall and treatment-specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with mild persistent asthma, two studies have shown that the use of intermittent ICS at the time of exacerbation reduced the chances of needing oral corticosteroids by half. This result is statistically significant if we assume that the effect size is the same for each study population (fixed effects model), but is not statistically significant when using a random effects model. However, the paucity of published evidence limits our conclusions towards the 'as-needed' use of this medication. The small number of studies and participants were the major reasons for downgrading the overall quality of the findings. A corresponding result was found in preschool children with wheeze. In this age group, an improvement in day time and night time asthma symptoms score and parental perceived quality of life of children similarly favoured the ICS group. However, there was no statistical difference in hospitalisation rates in any group. This treatment was not associated with any significant increase in adverse events. There was no growth suppression noted with the use of intermittent ICS in either preschool or school-aged children. Considering the limited number of available studies, we emphasise the need for more randomised controlled studies in order to confirm these findings.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2 -agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in growth among children with asthma?

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the first choice of treatment for children with persistent asthma that is not well controlled when only a reliever inhaler is used to treat symptoms. Steroids work by reducing inflammation in the lungs and are known to control underlying symptoms of asthma. However, parents and physicians remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth.

REVIEW QUESTION

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in the growth of children with asthma? WHAT EVIDENCE DID WE FIND?: We studied whether a difference could be seen in the growth of children with persistent asthma who were using different doses of the same ICS molecule and the same delivery device. We found 22 eligible trials, but only 10 of them measured growth or other measures of interest. Overall, 3394 children included in the review combined 17 group comparisons (i.e. 17 groups of children with mild to moderate asthma using a particular dose and type of steroid in 10 trials). Trials used different ICS molecules (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) either on their own or in combination with a long-acting beta2 -agonist (a drug used to open up the airways) and generally compared low doses of corticosteroids (50 to 100 μg) with low to medium (200 μg) doses of corticosteroids (converted in μg HFA-beclomethasone equivalent) over 12 to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We found a small but statistically significant group difference in growth over 12 months between these different doses clearly favouring the lower dose of ICS. The type of corticosteroid among newer molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) did not seem to influence the impact on growth over one year. Differences in corticosteroid doses did not seem to affect the change in height, the gain in weight, the gain in bone mass index and the maturation of bones. QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE: This review is based on a small number of trials that reported data and were conducted on children with mild to moderate asthma. Only 10 of 22 studies measured the few outcomes of interest for this review, and only four comparisons reported growth over 12 months. Our confidence in the quality of evidence is high for this outcome, however it is low to moderate for several other outcomes, depending on the number of trials reporting these outcomes. Moreover, a few outcomes were reported only by a single trial; as these findings have not been confirmed by other trials, we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes to low quality. An insufficient number of trials have compared the effect of a larger difference in dose, for example, between a high dose and a low dose of ICS and of other popular molecules such as budesonide and beclomethasone over a year or longer of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We report an evidence-based ICS dose-dependent reduction in growth velocity in prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The choice of ICS molecule (mometasone, ciclesonide or fluticasone) was not found to affect the level of growth velocity response over a year. The effect of corticosteroids on growth was not consistently reported: among 22 eligible trials, only four comparisons reported the effects of corticosteroids on growth over one year. In view of parents' and clinicians' concerns, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth is a matter of concern given the importance of the topic. We recommend that growth be systematically reported in all trials involving children taking ICS for three months or longer. Until further data comparing low versus high ICS dose and trials of longer duration are available, we recommend that the minimal effective ICS dose be used in all children with asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. Although ICS treatment is generally considered safe in children, the potential systemic adverse effects related to regular use of these drugs have been and continue to be a matter of concern, especially the effects on linear growth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of ICS on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma and to explore potential effect modifiers such as characteristics of available treatments (molecule, dose, length of exposure, inhalation device) and of treated children (age, disease severity, compliance with treatment).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO; we handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases to look for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was conducted in January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing daily use of ICS, delivered by any type of inhalation device for at least three months, versus placebo or non-steroidal drugs in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted meta-analyses using the Cochrane statistical package RevMan 5.2 and Stata version 11.0. We used the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs as the metrics for treatment effects. A negative value for MD indicates that ICS have suppressive effects on linear growth compared with controls. We performed a priori planned subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modifiers, such as ICS molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and age of the treated child.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials involving 8471 (5128 ICS-treated and 3343 control) children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Six molecules (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate) given at low or medium daily doses were used during a period of three months to four to six years. Most trials were blinded and over half of the trials had drop out rates of over 20%. Compared with placebo or non-steroidal drugs, ICS produced a statistically significant reduction in linear growth velocity (14 trials with 5717 participants, MD -0.48 cm/y, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.30, moderate quality evidence) and in the change from baseline in height (15 trials with 3275 participants; MD -0.61 cm/y, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.38, moderate quality evidence) during a one-year treatment period. Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant group difference between six molecules in the mean reduction of linear growth velocity during one-year treatment (Chi(2) = 26.1, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, P value < 0.0001). The group difference persisted even when analysis was restricted to the trials using doses equivalent to 200 μg/d hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone. Subgroup analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of daily dose (low vs medium), inhalation device or participant age on the magnitude of ICS-induced suppression of linear growth velocity during a one-year treatment period. However, head-to-head comparisons are needed to assess the effects of different drug molecules, dose, inhalation device or patient age. No statistically significant difference in linear growth velocity was found between participants treated with ICS and controls during the second year of treatment (five trials with 3174 participants; MD -0.19 cm/y, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11, P value 0.22). Of two trials that reported linear growth velocity in the third year of treatment, one trial involving 667 participants showed similar growth velocity between the budesonide and placebo groups (5.34 cm/y vs 5.34 cm/y), and another trial involving 1974 participants showed lower growth velocity in the budesonide group compared with the placebo group (MD -0.33 cm/y, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.14, P value 0.0005). Among four trials reporting data on linear growth after treatment cessation, three did not describe statistically significant catch-up growth in the ICS group two to four months after treatment cessation. One trial showed accelerated linear growth velocity in the fluticasone group at 12 months after treatment cessation, but there remained a statistically significant difference of 0.7 cm in height between the fluticasone and placebo groups at the end of the three-year trial. One trial with follow-up into adulthood showed that participants of prepubertal age treated with budesonide 400 μg/d for a mean duration of 4.3 years had a mean reduction of 1.20 cm (95% CI -1.90 to -0.50) in adult height compared with those treated with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of ICS at low or medium daily doses is associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm/y in linear growth velocity and a 0.61-cm change from baseline in height during a one-year treatment period in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The effect size of ICS on linear growth velocity appears to be associated more strongly with the ICS molecule than with the device or dose (low to medium dose range). ICS-induced growth suppression seems to be maximal during the first year of therapy and less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment. However, additional studies are needed to better characterise the molecule dependency of growth suppression, particularly with newer molecules (mometasone, ciclesonide), to specify the respective role of molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and patient age on the effect size of ICS, and to define the growth suppression effect of ICS treatment over a period of several years in children with persistent asthma.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Do inhaled corticosteroids reduce growth in children with persistent asthma? Review question: We reviewed the evidence on whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) could affect growth in children with persistent asthma, that is, a more severe asthma that requires regular use of medications for control of symptoms.

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend ICS as first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. Although ICS treatment is generally considered safe in children, parents and physicians always remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth. Search date: We searched trials published until January 2014. Study characteristics: We included in this review trials comparing daily use of corticosteroids, delivered by any type of inhalation device for at least three months, versus placebo or non-steroidal drugs in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty-five trials involving 8471 children with mild to moderate persistent asthma (5128 treated with ICS and 3343 treated with placebo or non-steroidal drugs) were included in this review. Eighty percent of these trials were conducted in more than two different centres and were called multi-centre studies; five were international multi-centre studies conducted in high-income and low-income countries across Africa, Asia-Pacifica, Europe and the Americas. Sixty-eight percent were financially supported by pharmaceutical companies. Meta-analysis (a statistical technique that combines the results of several studies and provides a high level of evidence) suggests that children treated daily with ICS may grow approximately half a centimeter per year less than those not treated with these medications during the first year of treatment. The magnitude of ICS-related growth reduction may depend on the type of drug. Growth reduction seems to be maximal during the first year of therapy and less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment. Evidence provided by this review allows us to conclude that daily use of ICS can cause a small reduction in height in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma; this effect seems minor compared with the known benefit of these medications for asthma control.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

Eleven of 25 trials did not report how they guaranteed that participants had an equal chance of receiving ICS or placebo or non-steroidal drugs. All but six trials did not report how researchers were kept unaware of the treatment assignment list. However, this methodological limitation may not significantly affect the quality of evidence because the results remained almost unchanged when we excluded these trials from the analysis.

Revisiting early intervention in adult asthma

The term "early intervention" with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma is used in different ways, thereby causing confusion and misinterpretation of data. We propose that the term should be reserved for start of ICS therapy in patients with a diagnosis of asthma but within a short period of time after the first symptoms, not from the date of diagnosis. Prospective clinical studies suggest a time frame of 2 years for the term "early" from the onset of symptoms to starting anti-inflammatory treatment with ICS. The current literature supports early intervention with ICS for all patients with asthma including patients with mild disease, who often have normal or near-normal lung function. This approach reduces symptoms rapidly and allows patients to achieve early asthma control. Later introduction of ICS therapy may not reduce effectiveness in terms of lung function but delays asthma control and exposes patients to unnecessary morbidity. Results of nationwide intervention programmes support the early use of ICS, as it significantly minimises the disease burden. Acute asthma exacerbations are usually preceded by progressing symptoms and lung function decline over a period of 1-2 weeks. Treatment with an increased dose of ICS together with a rapid- and long-acting inhaled β2-agonist during this phase has reduced the risk of severe exacerbations.

Personalized medicine in children with asthma

Personalized medicine for children with asthma aims to provide a tailored management of asthma, which leads to faster and better asthma control, has less adverse events and may be cost saving. Several patient characteristics, lung function parameters and biomarkers have been shown useful in predicting treatment response or predicting successful reduction of asthma medication. As treatment response to the main asthma therapies is partly genetically determined, pharmacogenetics may open the way for personalized medicine in children with asthma. However, the number of genes identified for the various asthma drug response phenotypes remains small and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Biomarkers in exhaled breath or breath condensate remain promising but did not find their way from bench to bedside yet, except for the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide. E-health will most likely find its way to clinical practice and most interventions are at least non-inferior to usual care. More studies are needed on which interventions will benefit most individual children.

Pharmacotherapy of critical asthma syndrome: current and emerging therapies

The critical asthma syndrome (CAS) encompasses the most severe, persistent, refractory asthma patients for the clinician to manage. Personalized pharmacotherapy is necessary to prevent the next acute severe asthma exacerbation, not just the control of symptoms. The 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel 3 provides guidelines for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma. The patient's response to recommended pharmacotherapy is highly variable which risks poor asthma control leading to frequent exacerbations that can deteriorate into CAS. Controlling asthma symptoms and preventing acute exacerbations may be two separate clinical activities with their own unique demands. Clinicians must be prepared to use the entire spectrum of asthma medications available but must concurrently be aware of potential drug toxicities some of which can paradoxically worsen asthma control. Medications normally prescribed for COPD can potentially be useful in the CAS patient, particularly those with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. Immunomodulation with drugs like omalizumab in IgE-mediated asthma syndromes is one important approach. New and emerging drugs address unique aspects of airway inflammation and biology but at a significant financial cost. The pharmacology and toxicities of the agents that may be used in the treatment of CAS to control asthma symptoms and prevent severe exacerbations are reviewed.

Intranasal triamcinolone and growth velocity

BACKGROUND

Inadequate designs and conflicting results from previous studies prompted the US Food and Drug Administration to publish guidelines for the design of clinical trials evaluating the effects of orally inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids on the growth of children. This study conformed to these guidelines to evaluate the effect of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (TAA-AQ) on the growth of children with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of once-daily TAA-AQ (110 μg) on the growth velocity (GV) of children aged 3-9 years with PAR by using stadiometry at baseline (4-6 months), during treatment (12 months), and at follow-up (2 months). Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function was assessed by measuring urinary cortisol levels. Details of adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 1078 subjects screened, 299 were randomized, and 216 completed the study (placebo, 107; TAA-AQ, 109). In the primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat: placebo, 133; TAA-AQ, 134), least-squares mean GV during treatment was lower in the TAA-AQ group (5.65 cm/year) versus placebo (6.09 cm/year). The difference (-0.45 cm/year; 95% confidence interval: -0.78 to -0.11; P = .01), although clinically nonsignificant, was evident within 2 months of treatment and stabilized thereafter. At follow-up, the GV approached baseline (6.70 cm/year) in the TAA-AQ group (6.59 cm/year) and decreased slightly in the placebo group (5.89 cm/year vs 6.06 cm/year at baseline). No HPA axis suppression was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

By using rigorous Food and Drug Administration-recommended design elements, this study detected a small, statistically significant effect of TAA-AQ on the GV of children with PAR.

The effects of inhaled corticosteroids on growth in children

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. These agents are particularly effective in reducing underlying airway inflammation, improving lung function, decreasing airway hyper-reactivity, and reducing intensity of symptoms in asthmatics. Chronic diseases, such as asthma, have growth-suppressing effects independent of the treatment, which inevitably complicates growth studies. One year studies showed a small, dose-dependent effect of most ICS on childhood growth, with some differences across various ICS molecules, and across individual children. Some ICS at the doses studied did not affect childhood growth when rigorous study designs were used. Most studies did not conform completely with the FDA guidance. The data on effects of childhood ICS use on final adult height are conflicting, but one recent well-designed study showed such an effect, clearly warranting additional studies. In spite of these measurable effects of ICS on childhood growth, it is important to understand that the safety profile of all ICS preparations, with focal anti-inflammatory effects on the lung, is significantly better than oral glucocorticoids.

Daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroid treatment for mild persistent asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines recommend the use of daily inhaled corticosteroids as preferred treatment for preschoolers, children, adolescents, and adults with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma. However, intermittent or as-needed inhaled corticosteroids treatment in response to symptoms is an emerging strategy. This review is focused on the analysis (clinical efficacy and safety) of this approach in comparison with the current daily-based therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, some authors favored the use of inhaled corticosteroids based on symptoms. It has been suggested that a symptom-based approach could reduce the amount of drug used, minimize the risk of adverse events, and reduce healthcare costs. In contrast, physicians prescribing intermittent inhaled corticosteroids would give the wrong message to their patients about the chronicity of the disease. Currently, there is a significant body of high-quality clinical studies and systematic reviews that have addressed this important controversy, and whose analysis allows us to extract some important conclusions.

SUMMARY

Present evidence does not support a change in the direction of an intermittent or symptom-based use approach for recurrent wheezing and mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. At this point, there is no convincing basis to alter the current strategy to inhaled corticosteroids dosing, and more studies are needed comparing these two approaches.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. Although ICS treatment is generally considered safe in children, the potential systemic adverse effects related to regular use of these drugs have been and continue to be a matter of concern, especially the effects on linear growth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of ICS on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma and to explore potential effect modifiers such as characteristics of available treatments (molecule, dose, length of exposure, inhalation device) and of treated children (age, disease severity, compliance with treatment).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO; we handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases to look for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was conducted in January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing daily use of ICS, delivered by any type of inhalation device for at least three months, versus placebo or non-steroidal drugs in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted meta-analyses using the Cochrane statistical package RevMan 5.2 and Stata version 11.0. We used the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs as the metrics for treatment effects. A negative value for MD indicates that ICS have suppressive effects on linear growth compared with controls. We performed a priori planned subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modifiers, such as ICS molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and age of the treated child.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials involving 8471 (5128 ICS-treated and 3343 control) children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Six molecules (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate) [corrected] given at low or medium daily doses were used during a period of three months to four to six years. Most trials were blinded and over half of the trials had drop out rates of over 20%.Compared with placebo or non-steroidal drugs, ICS produced a statistically significant reduction in linear growth velocity (14 trials with 5717 participants, MD -0.48 cm/y, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.30, moderate quality evidence) and in the change from baseline in height (15 trials with 3275 participants; MD -0.61 cm/y, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.38, moderate quality evidence) during a one-year treatment period.Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant group difference between six molecules in the mean reduction of linear growth velocity during one-year treatment (Chi² = 26.1, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, P value < 0.0001). The group difference persisted even when analysis was restricted to the trials using doses equivalent to 200 μg/d hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone. Subgroup analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of daily dose (low vs medium), inhalation device or participant age on the magnitude of ICS-induced suppression of linear growth velocity during a one-year treatment period. However, head-to-head comparisons are needed to assess the effects of different drug molecules, dose, inhalation device or patient age. No statistically significant difference in linear growth velocity was found between participants treated with ICS and controls during the second year of treatment (five trials with 3174 participants; MD -0.19 cm/y, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11, P value 0.22). Of two trials that reported linear growth velocity in the third year of treatment, one trial involving 667 participants showed similar growth velocity between the budesonide and placebo groups (5.34 cm/y vs 5.34 cm/y), and another trial involving 1974 participants showed lower growth velocity in the budesonide group compared with the placebo group (MD -0.33 cm/y, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.14, P value 0.0005). Among four trials reporting data on linear growth after treatment cessation, three did not describe statistically significant catch-up growth in the ICS group two to four months after treatment cessation. One trial showed accelerated linear growth velocity in the fluticasone group at 12 months after treatment cessation, but there remained a statistically significant difference of 0.7 cm in height between the fluticasone and placebo groups at the end of the three-year trial.One trial with follow-up into adulthood showed that participants of prepubertal age treated with budesonide 400 μg/d for a mean duration of 4.3 years had a mean reduction of 1.20 cm (95% CI -1.90 to -0.50) in adult height compared with those treated with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of ICS at low or medium daily doses is associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm/y in linear growth velocity and a 0.61-cm change from baseline in height during a one-year treatment period in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The effect size of ICS on linear growth velocity appears to be associated more strongly with the ICS molecule than with the device or dose (low to medium dose range). ICS-induced growth suppression seems to be maximal during the first year of therapy and less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment. However, additional studies are needed to better characterise the molecule dependency of growth suppression, particularly with newer molecules (mometasone, ciclesonide), to specify the respective role of molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and patient age on the effect size of ICS, and to define the growth suppression effect of ICS treatment over a period of several years in children with persistent asthma.

Combination corticosteroid/β-agonist inhaler as reliever therapy: a solution for intermittent and mild asthma?

The recommended treatment of mild asthma is regular maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with a short-acting β-agonist as a separate inhaler used when needed for symptom relief. However, the benefits of regular ICS use in actual clinical practice are limited by poor adherence and low prescription rates. An alternative strategy would be the symptom-driven (as-required or "prn") use of a combination ICS/short-acting β-agonist or ICS/long-acting β-agonist inhaler as a reliever rather than regular maintenance use. The rationale for this approach is to titrate both the ICS and β-agonist dose according to need and enhance ICS use in otherwise poorly adherent patients who overrely on their reliever β-agonist inhaler. This strategy will only work if the β-agonist component has a rapid onset of action for symptom relief. There is evidence to suggest that this regimen has advantages over regular ICS therapy and might represent an effective, safe, and novel therapy for the treatment of intermittent and mild asthma. In this commentary we review this evidence and propose that randomized controlled trials investigating different combination ICS/β-agonist inhaler products prescribed according to this regimen in intermittent and mild asthma are an important priority.

Systematic review of nutrient intake and growth in children with multiple IgE-mediated food allergies

BACKGROUND

Food allergies affect up to 8% of American children. The current recommended treatment for food allergies is strict elimination of the allergens from the diet. Dietary elimination of nutrient-dense foods may result in inadequate nutrient intake and impaired growth. The purpose of this review was to critically analyze available research on the effect of an elimination diet on nutrient intake and growth in children with multiple food allergies.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted and a workgroup was established to critically analyze each relevant article. The findings were summarized and a conclusion was generated.

RESULTS

Six studies were analyzed. One study found that children with food allergies are more likely to be malnourished than children without food allergies. Three studies found that children with multiple food allergies were shorter than children with 1 food allergy. Four studies assessed nutrient intake of children with multiple food allergies, but the inclusion and comparison criteria were different in each of the studies and the findings were conflicting. One study found that children with food allergies who did not receive nutrition counseling were more likely to have inadequate intake of calcium and vitamin D.

CONCLUSION

Children with multiple food allergies have a higher risk of impaired growth and may have a higher risk of inadequate nutrient intake than children without food allergies. Until more research is available, we recommend monitoring of nutrition and growth of children with multiple food allergies to prevent possible nutrient deficiencies and to optimize growth.

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: on-demand or continuous use

Continuous inhaled corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in children and adults with mild persistent asthma, although some therapeutic benefits are not lost if treatment is delayed. Many patients do not adhere to continuous treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, but rather take them intermittently, usually at the time of increased symptoms. Based on these observations it has been proposed that for patients with mild persistent asthma inhaled corticosteroids should be used on-demand when symptoms are troublesome, rather than on a continuous basis. The article reviews the pharmacological properties of inhaled corticosteroids used in clinical trials of on-demand treatment, as well as the evidence for the efficacy and safety of on-demand compared with continuous inhaled corticosteroid treatment of mild persistent asthma in adults and children. The place of on-demand treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in the management of asthma is discussed, as well as future directions for different management strategies for this group.

The impact of ventral noradrenergic bundle lesions on increased IL-1 in the PVN and hormonal responses to stress in male sprague dawley rats

The impact of acute stress on inflammatory signaling within the central nervous system is of interest because these factors influence neuroendocrine function both directly and indirectly. Exposure to certain stressors increases expression of the proinflammatory cytokine, Il-1β in the hypothalamus. Increased IL-1 is reciprocally regulated by norepinephrine (stimulatory) and corticosterone (inhibitory), yet neural pathways underlying increased IL-1 have not been clarified. These experiments explored the impact of bilateral lesions of the ventral noradrenergic bundle (VNAB) on IL-1 expression in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVN) after foot shock. Adult male Sprague Dawley rats received bilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the VNAB (VNABx) and were exposed to intermittent foot shock. VNABx depleted approximately 64% of norepinephrine in the PVN and attenuated the IL-1 response produced by foot shock. However, characterization of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal response, a crucial prerequisite for interpreting the effect of VNABx on IL-1 expression, revealed a profound dissociation between ACTH and corticosterone. Specifically, VNABx blocked the intronic CRH response in the PVN and the increase in plasma ACTH, whereas corticosterone was unaffected at all time points examined. Additionally, foot shock led to a rapid and profound increase in cyclooxygenase-2 and IL-1 expression within the adrenal glands, whereas more subtle effects were observed in the pituitary gland. Together the findings were the 1) demonstration that exposure to acute stress increased expression of inflammatory factors more broadly throughout the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; 2) implication of a modest role for norepinephrine-containing fibers of the VNAB as an upstream regulator of PVN IL-1; and 3) suggestion of an ACTH-independent mechanism controlling the release of corticosterone in VNABx rats.

Daily vs. intermittent inhaled corticosteroids for recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intermittent ICS treatment with SABA in response to symptoms, is an emerging strategy for control of mild-to-moderate asthma, and recurrent wheezing. This systematic revue compares the efficacy of daily vs. intermittent ICS among preschoolers, children and adults with persistent wheezing and mild to moderate stable persistent asthma.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a minimum of 8 weeks of daily (daily ICS with rescue SABA during exacerbations) vs. intermittent ICS (ICS plus SABA at the onset of symptoms), were retrieved through different databases. Primary outcome was asthma exacerbations; secondary outcomes were pulmonary function tests, symptoms, days without symptoms, SABA use, corticosteroids use, days without rescue medication use, expired nitric oxide and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven trials (1367 participants) met inclusion criteria there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of asthma exacerbations between those with daily vs. intermittent ICS (0.96; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.06, I(2) = 0%). In the sub-group analysis, no differences were seen in duration of studies, step-up strategy or age. However, compared to intermittent ICS, the daily ICS group had a significant increase in asthma-free days and non-significant decreases in rescue SABA use and exhaled nitric oxide measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences between daily and intermittent ICS in reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations was found. However, the daily ICS strategy was superior in many secondary outcomes. Therefore, this study suggests to not change daily for intermittent ICS use among preschoolers, children with persistent wheezing and adults with mild-to-moderate stable persistent asthma. International prospective register of systematic reviews http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42012003228).

Does Use of Inhaled Corticosteroid for Management of Asthma in Children Make Them Shorter Adults?

The purpose of this review is to discuss the effect of daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) on the height of children with asthma. The effect of ICSs on growth and height is dependent on the dose and the therapeutic index of the ICS; however, the effect on final adult height was not clear until recently. New data suggest that if growth suppression occurs with the use of ICSs in children, it is sustained, but not cumulative over the years. The observed reduction in the final adult height is small and does not outweigh the benefits of ICSs, and the growth effect may be minimized by use of newer ICSs and other approaches for management of asthma in children with mild to moderate asthma.

From knemometry to final adult height: inhaled corticosteroids and their effect on growth in childhood

Growth impairment in children with asthma, as a consequence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), is a major issue. Adverse systemic effects of ICS have been reviewed extensively, but no clinically relevant effects are reported if they are used in an appropriate dose as advocated in most guidelines. Growth studies can be divided into knemometry studies, intermediate term studies, and long term studies up to final adult height. These different studies provide different information. Knemometry demonstrates a dose dependent systemic effect, while all intermediate term studies demonstrate growth reduction of approximately one cm after one year of treatment. Most reassuring is that this delay seems to be temporary. The one study with a follow-up to final height shows no differences between the ICS and non-ICS treated children. The studies suggest that the use of ICS with respect to growth is safe if these drugs are used in a low to medium dose.

Inhaled corticosteroids in lung diseases

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to their broad antiinflammatory effects. They improve lung function, symptoms, and quality of life and reduce exacerbations in both conditions but do not alter the progression of disease. They decrease mortality in asthma but not COPD. The available ICSs vary in their therapeutic index and potency. Although ICSs are used in all age groups, younger and smaller children may be at a greater risk for adverse systemic effects because they can receive higher mg/kg doses of ICSs compared with older children. Most of the benefit from ICSs occurs in the low to medium dose range. Minimal additional improvement is seen with higher doses, although some patients may benefit from higher doses. Although ICSs are the preferred agents for managing persistent asthma in all ages, their benefit in COPD is more controversial. When used appropriately, ICSs have few adverse events at low to medium doses, but risk increases with high-dose ICSs. Although several new drugs are being developed and evaluated, it is unlikely that any of these new medications will replace ICSs as the preferred initial long-term controller therapy for asthma, but more effective initial controller therapy could be developed for COPD.

Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. However, often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov web site up to October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32; the large confidence interval translates into a risk of exacerbations in the intermittent ICS group varying between 17% and 25%, assuming a 19% risk with daily ICS). Age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β2-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, there was low quality evidence that intermittent and daily ICS strategies were similarly effective in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events. The strength of the evidence means that we cannot currently assume equivalence between the two options.. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. Clinicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. Yet often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32). The patients' age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β(2)-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, intermittent and daily ICS strategies did not significantly differ in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events, neither did they reach equivalence. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. The clinician should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

[Mild asthma in children: new data and a revival of interest]

According to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classification, mild asthma includes intermittent and mild persistent asthma. It represents more than 75% of asthmatic children. The symptoms and functional impact are well described. Mild asthma can lead to severe exacerbations. Progression to more severe disease may occur. Consequently, it is important to diagnose mild asthma, to initiate the appropriate treatment early, and to identify the risk factors for aggravation. Nevertheless, mild asthma is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Bronchial inflammation and remodeling are observed in mild asthma. A daily low-dose of inhaled corticosteroids is the reference treatment for mild persistent asthma. Intermittent inhaled corticosteroids cannot be recommended in children with mild persistent asthma.

High physician adherence to phenotype-specific asthma guidelines, but large variability in phenotype assessment in children

BACKGROUND

The implementation of international pediatric asthma guidelines hinges on the distinction between intermittent and persistent phenotypes and the prescription of recommended phenotype-specific pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain key factors associated with specialist-confirmed phenotype and document physicians' adherence to practice recommendations in an academic pediatric asthma center.

DESIGN/METHODS

Using electronic health records, we identified a cohort of children aged 1-17 years who presented to a tertiary-care asthma center between 2002 and 2007 and received a diagnosis of asthma from a pediatric specialist. Outcomes included: determinants of phenotypes and conformity with phenotype-specific treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 3490 eligible children (11,119 visits), most (47%) were preschoolers, 35% were 6-11 years and 18%, 13-17 years. Of children with confirmed asthma, 59% were classified on presentation as having intermittent, 41% as persistent, asthma. The within-patient phenotype varied over time with a consistency index of 0.76 (best=1); the latter was significantly lower in preschoolers than older children (p<0.0001). The persistent phenotype was highly physician-dependent; it was also positively associated with child's age, asthma severity, multiple triggers, calendar year, and duration of follow-up. Compared to 33% of children with intermittent asthma, 82% of those with persistent asthma were prescribed a maintenance controller, most as monotherapy; combination therapy was usually prescribed after a trial of monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric asthma specialists were highly adherent to phenotype-specific pharmacotherapy. However, even in an academic center, the notable degree of intra-patient and between-physician variation in phenotype, particularly in preschoolers, was an important impediment to prescribing a maintenance controller. The findings underline the importance of developing validated and standardized means of assessing phenotypes, applicable to the whole pediatric age spectrum.

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.

Canadian Thoracic Society 2012 guideline update: diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers, children and adults

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) published a Consensus Summary for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children six years of age and older, and adults, including an updated Asthma Management Continuum. The CTS Asthma Clinical Assembly subsequently began a formal clinical practice guideline update process, focusing, in this first iteration, on topics of controversy and⁄or gaps in the previous guidelines.

METHODS

Four clinical questions were identified as a focus for the updated guideline: the role of noninvasive measurements of airway inflammation for the adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy; the initiation of adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for uncontrolled asthma; the role of a single inhaler of an ICS⁄long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination as a reliever, and as a reliever and a controller; and the escalation of controller medication for acute loss of asthma control as part of a self-management action plan. The expert panel followed an adaptation process to identify and appraise existing guidelines on the specified topics. In addition, literature searches were performed to identify relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. The panel formally assessed and graded the evidence, and made 34 recommendations.

RESULTS

The updated guideline recommendations outline a role for inclusion of assessment of sputum eosinophils, in addition to standard measures of asthma control, to guide adjustment of controller therapy in adults with moderate to severe asthma. Appraisal of the evidence regarding which adjunct controller therapy to add to ICS and at what ICS dose to begin adjunct therapy in children and adults with poor asthma control supported the 2010 CTS Consensus Summary recommendations. New recommendations for the adjustment of controller medication within written action plans are provided. Finally, priority areas for future research were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The present clinical practice guideline is the first update of the CTS Asthma Guidelines following the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee's new guideline development process. Tools and strategies to support guideline implementation will be developed and the CTS will continue to regularly provide updates reflecting new evidence.