Combination therapy salmeterol/fluticasone versus doubling dose of fluticasone in children with asthma

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.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment.

METHODS

Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline: achieving optimal asthma control in children aged 6-11 years

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 guidelines for asthma have been set forth with some alterations in step 3, for children from the 6-11-year-old age group. The low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting β-agonist (LABA), very low-dose formoterol-ICS, medium-dose ICS, and ICS-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) combination were recommended in the guideline. We organized this study to draw an effective comparison between these three combinations of controller therapies in the pediatric population. A retrospective study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital (Karachi, Pakistan), which enrolled 114 children aged 6-11 years old from July 2021 to December 2022. These children were admitted with asthma exacerbations and were discharged on controller medications as per GINA guidelines on step 3 for control of asthma for 3 months. They were then followed for re-admission within 30 days of discharge, number of emergency room (ER) visits with asthma exacerbations for 1 year, number of admissions with asthma, including high dependency unit and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions, and length of stay per admission for all admissions in the subsequent year. The pulmonary function test was done at the 1-week follow-up in the clinic after discharge and at the 3-month visit post-discharge. A total of 114 pediatric patients from 6 to 11 years old were enrolled in the study period, out of which 36 (31.57%), 33 (28.9%), and 34 (29.82%) patients were categorized into ICS-LABA, ICS, and ICS-LTRA groups, respectively. ER visits were significantly low in the ICS-LABA group, followed by the ICS-LRTA group and then the ICS group (1.75±0.96 versus 2.93±1.412 versus 3.11±1.21, p<0.001). Similar statistically significant results were observed on the average number of admissions per year (1.52±1.02 versus 1.96±0.84 versus 2.06±1.07, p=0.047) and the number of patients needing PICU (13.88% versus 26.47% versus 39.39%, p=0.034) in these groups, respectively. ICS-LABA group patients had the best values of the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio after pulmonary function tests at 3 months follow-up, followed by ICS-LTRA and ICS group. Amongst the three options for regimens for children managed at step 3 on GINA 2021 guidelines, ICS-LABA therapy helps attain optimal patient outcomes and lung functions in children with asthma, followed by ICS-LTRA and ICS group, respectively.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

Comparison of three alternatives for the management of moderate asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines for children 6-11 years with persistent asthma advocate three alternatives: SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 mcg qd plus additional doses as needed), fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol, and fixed-dose budesonide. Concerns have arisen as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy were calculated over a time horizon of 6 years. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The mean QALY per patient was 0.57 and 0.56 QALYs per patient per year of SMART and fixed combination and 0,52 with fixed-dose budesonide. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$111 for SMART, US$133 for fixed combination, and US$67 for fixed-dose budesonide. The net monetary benefit of SMART was US$12,549, US$12278 for fixed combination, and US$11,380 for fixed-dose budesonide.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that SMART was more cost-effective than fixed combination and fixed-dose budesonide. These findings complement and support the GINA 2021 and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guideline recommendations for use of inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) has emerged as an alternative therapy, since it is administered every 24 h, in contrast to other ICS/LABAs such as fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/Salm), which requires administration every 12 h. Concerns have arisen over whether the benefit generated by FF/VI justifies the additional costs it involves over FP/Salm. This study aimed at assessing the health and economic consequences of FF/VI in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs for FF/VI and FP/Salm were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

We estimated a gain of 16.8 and 10.7 QALYs per patient per year on FF/VI and FP/Salm, respectively. At the same time, we observed a difference of US$216 in total discounted cost per person-year on FF/VI with respect to FP/Salm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FF/VI was USD $70 per QALY with respect to FP/Salm. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

FF/VI is more cost-effective than FP/Salm. The evidence supports using FF/VI therapy in Colombia, and the study should be replicated in other middle-income countries.

SMART therapy in adolescent and adults patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines, recommends for persistent asthma as first alternative low dose inhaled budesonide-formoterol maintenance and reliever over fixed combination of low doses inhaled corticosteroids - long-acting beta-agonist, or fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns arise as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model suggests a potential gain of 1.27 and 1.34 QALYs per patient per year on SMART respect to fixed combination and fixed-dose ICS respectively. We observed a reduction of US$4 in total discounted cost per person-year on SMART with respect to fixed combination and US$0.1 respect to fixed-dose ICS. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

SMART therapy was found to be cost-effective regarding fixed combination and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. This evidence supports the use of SMART therapy in Colombia and must to be replicated in others middle-income countries.

Comparison of the effect of fluticasone combined with salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma: review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of fluticasone + salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Studies meeting specific selection criteria were selected from online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to evaluate the effect size of continuous variables, while rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, including 8,272 pediatric asthma patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among these, 4,133 patients were in the salmeterol + fluticasone group. The changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with asthma in the salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, WMD = 3.26, 95% CI: 1.52-5.00, P = 0.0002). Asthma exacerbation between two groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, Z = 2.18, P = 0.03). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma (P > 0.05). When the control group was treated with double dose fluticasone, the difference of changes in FEV1 and asthma exacerbation in children with asthma between the two groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is better than fluticasone alone, and the efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is equal to doubling the dose of fluticasone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

Comparison of Two Therapies on Asthma Control in Children

Background: Childhood asthma carries significant morbidity. Aim/Objectives: Aim of the study was to compare efficacy of 2 commonly used therapies for asthma control in children with asthma. Methods: This was a 1-year, prospective cohort study at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients were referred by their primary care physicians (PCPs) for asthma control. All patients were on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) at baseline. They were either switched to medium-dose ICS (ICS group) or medium-dose ICS and long-acting beta agonist (ICS+LABA group). Results were compared over time and between both groups. Results: Our cohort included 163 children (ages 2-18 years) with mean age of 5.62 ± 3.61 years. Mean Asthma Control Test (ACT) score at baseline was 15.9 ± 5.4. Mean ACT and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second improved (P < 0.0001 for both) in both groups. Median emergency department visits, short courses of oral steroids, and unscheduled PCP visits for acute asthma significantly decreased (P < 0.001 for all) in both groups. Similarly, days/month with wheezing, nighttime cough, and missed school days significantly decreased in both groups (P < 0.001 for all). Patients in ICS group were more likely to fail to achieve asthma control compared to patients in ICS+LABA group. Conclusion: Our study suggests that in children with uncontrolled asthma on low-dose ICS, switching to either medium-dose ICS or medium-dose ICS+LABA resulted in better symptom control, ACT improvement, and less asthma exacerbations over time. ICS+LABA had the additional benefit of less risk of treatment failure when compared to medium-dose ICS.

Management/Comorbidities of School-Aged Children with Asthma

Asthma is a complex heterogeneous disease characterized by reversible airflow obstruction. After appropriate diagnosis, the management in school-aged children centers on 3 broad domains: pharmacologic treatment, treatment of underlying comorbidities, and education of the patient and caregivers. It is important to understand that the phenotypic differences that exist in the school-aged child with asthma may impact underlying comorbid conditions as well as pharmacologic treatment choices. Following initiation of therapy, asthma control must be continually evaluated in order to optimize management.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

The pediatric asthma yardstick: Practical recommendations for a sustained step-up in asthma therapy for children with inadequately controlled asthma

Current asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to management involving assessment of impairment and risk followed by implementation of treatment strategies individualized according to the patient's needs and preferences. However, for children with asthma, achieving control can be elusive. Although tools are available to help children (and families) track and manage day-to-day symptoms, when and how to implement a longer-term step-up in care is less clear. Furthermore, treatment is challenged by the 3 age groups of childhood-adolescence (12-18 years old), school age (6-11 years old), and young children (≤5 years old)-and what works for 1 age group might not be the best approach for another. The Pediatric Asthma Yardstick provides an in-depth assessment of when and how to step-up therapy for the child with not well or poorly controlled asthma. Development of this tool follows others in the Yardstick series, presenting patient profiles and step-up strategies based on current guidance documents, but modified according to newer data and the authors' combined clinical experience. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat children with asthma practical and clinically relevant recommendations for each step-up and each intervention, with the intent of helping practitioners better treat their pediatric patients with asthma, particularly those who do not always respond to recommended therapies.

Pediatric asthma treatment: What to do when international guideline recommendations do not agree

BACKGROUND

There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs.

OBJECTIVE

To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part.

RESULTS

Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma.

CONCLUSION

For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

A "real-life" study on height in prepubertal asthmatic children receiving inhaled steroids

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is the most common chronic respiratory disease in children and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) constitute the first line of treatment for these patients. However, the potential growth-inhibiting effect of ICS has often been a cause of concern for both caregivers as well as physicians, and there still remains conflict regarding their safety profile.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the administration of ICS in low or medium doses is associated with height reduction in prepubertal children.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study to examine the association between ICS treatment and growth deceleration in children with mild persistent asthma. The comparison of height measurements every 6 months from 3 to 8 years of age was conducted among three groups of patients: patients not receiving ICS, patients being treated with low dose of ICS and patients being treated with medium dose of ICS (GINA Guidelines 2015).

RESULTS

This study included 284 patients (198 male, 86 female) aged 3-8 years; 75 patients were not receiving ICS, 63 patients were on low-dose ICS and 146 patients were on medium-dose ICS. The measured height every 6 months did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among the three groups while the difference remained stable (p > 0.05), even when we evaluated males and females separately.

CONCLUSIONS

In this "real-life" study we found that long-term treatment with ICS in low or medium doses is not associated with height reduction in prepubertal children with asthma.

Comparative Effectiveness of Step-up Therapies in Children with Asthma Prescribed Inhaled Corticosteroids: A Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In children with uncontrolled asthma prescribed low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), various step-up options are available: fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (FDC), increasing ICS dose, or adding leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). However, evidence of their relative effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of step-up treatment to FDC in children with asthma versus increased ICS dose, or LTRA.

METHODS

This matched cohort study used UK primary-care databases to study children prescribed their first step-up treatment to FDC, increased ICS dose, or LTRA. A year of baseline data was used for matching and identifying confounders. Outcomes over the following year were examined. The primary outcome was severe exacerbation rate; secondary outcomes included overall asthma control, derived from databases (no asthma-related admissions/hospital attendances/oral corticosteroids or antibiotics prescribed with a respiratory review, and average prescribed salbutamol ≤200 μg/day).

RESULTS

There were 971 matched pairs in the FDC and increased ICS dose cohorts (59% males; mean age, 9.4 years) and 785 in the FDC and LTRA cohorts (60% males; mean age, 9.0 years). Exacerbation rates in the outcome year were similar between FDC and increased ICS (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.09 [0.75-1.59]) and FDC and LTRA (incidence rate ratio, 1.36 [0.93-2.01]). Increased ICS and LTRA significantly reduced the odds of achieving overall asthma control, compared with FDC (odds ratios [95% CI], 0.52 [0.42-0.64] and 0.53 [0.42-0.66], respectively)-this was driven by reduced short-acting beta-agonist use.

CONCLUSIONS

FDC is as effective as increased ICS or LTRA in reducing severe exacerbation rate, but more effective in achieving asthma control.

Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) have been shown to increase the risk of asthma-related death among adults and the risk of asthma-related hospitalization among children. It is unknown whether the concomitant use of inhaled glucocorticoids with LABAs mitigates those risks. This trial prospectively evaluated the safety of the LABA salmeterol, added to fluticasone propionate, in a fixed-dose combination in children.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, children 4 to 11 years of age who required daily asthma medications and had a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary safety end point was less than 2.675. The main efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 6208 patients, 27 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 21 in the fluticasone-alone group had a serious asthma-related event (all were hospitalizations); the hazard ratio with fluticasone-salmeterol versus fluticasone alone was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006). A total of 265 patients (8.5%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 309 (10.0%) in the fluticasone-alone group had a severe asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving children with asthma, salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone was associated with the risk of a serious asthma-related event that was similar to the risk with fluticasone alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; VESTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01462344 .).

The use of inhaled corticosteroids in pediatric asthma: update

Despite the availability of several formulations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and delivery devices for treatment of childhood asthma and despite the development of evidence-based guidelines, childhood asthma control remains suboptimal. Improving uptake of asthma management plans, both by families and practitioners, is needed. Adherence to daily ICS therapy is a key determinant of asthma control and this mandates that asthma education follow a repetitive pattern and involve literal explanation and physical demonstration of the optimal use of inhaler devices. The potential adverse effects of ICS need to be weighed against the benefit of these drugs to control persistent asthma especially that its safety profile is markedly better than oral glucocorticoids. This article reviews the key mechanisms of inhaled corticosteroid action; recommendations on dosage and therapeutic regimens; potential optimization of effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence to therapy; and updated knowledge on the real magnitude of adverse events.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Childhood asthma exacerbations and the Arg16 β2-receptor polymorphism: A meta-analysis stratified by treatment

BACKGROUND

The Gly-to-Arg substitution at the 16 position (rs1042713) in the β2-adrenoceptor gene (ADRB2) is associated with enhanced downregulation and uncoupling of β2-receptors.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to undertake a meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that there is an interaction between the A allele of rs1042713 (Arg16 amino acid) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) exposure for asthma exacerbations in children.

METHODS

Children with diagnosed asthma were recruited in 5 populations (BREATHE, Genes-Environments and Admixture in Latino Americans II, PACMAN, the Paediatric Asthma Gene Environment Study, and the Pharmacogenetics of Adrenal Suppression with Inhaled Steroid Study). A history of recent exacerbation and asthma treatment was determined from questionnaire data. DNA was extracted, and the Gly16Arg genotype was determined.

RESULTS

Data from 4226 children of white Northern European and Latino origin were analyzed, and the odds ratio for exacerbation increased by 1.52 (95% CI, 1.17-1.99; P = .0021) for each copy of the A allele among the 637 children treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus LABAs but not for treatment with ICSs alone (n = 1758) or ICSs plus leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRAs; n = 354) or ICSs plus LABAs plus LTRAs (n = 569).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a LABA but not an LTRA as an "add-on controller" is associated with increased risk of asthma exacerbation in children carrying 1 or 2 A alleles at rs1042713. Prospective genotype-stratified clinical trials are now required to explore the potential role of rs1042713 genotyping for personalized asthma therapy in children.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Initial step-up treatment changes in asthmatic children already prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: a historical cohort study

Background:

When standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) fail to control symptoms in children aged >4 years, guidelines recommend the addition of a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), with other treatment options being available if symptoms persist.

Aims:

To determine the proportion of initial ‘step-up’ episodes where LABAs were prescribed and to describe characteristics of individuals not stepped up with LABA.

Methods:

Between 1999 and 2011, initial step-up episodes from ICS monotherapy were identified in children aged 5–12 years with asthma and in receipt of ICS. Data sources were the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Optimum Patient Care Research Database.

Results:

Initial step-up episodes were identified in 10,793 children. ICS dose was increased in 6,252 children (58%), LABA was introduced in 3,436 (32%; including 1,107 where fixed dose combination inhaler (FDC) replaced the ICS inhaler), and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) was added in 1,105 (10%). Compared with children stepped up to any LABA, others were younger and prescribed lower doses of ICS and reliever medication. ICS dose increase was more likely in obese children and LTRA prescribing was more likely in children with rhinitis and in receipt of antibiotics. Compared with FDC, step-up to separate LABA inhaler was more likely in younger, obese children who were using less oral steroids.

Conclusions:

One-third of initial step-up episodes in children with asthma treated with ICS are to add LABA. Different characteristics of children prescribed therapies other than LABA suggest that prescribers tailor treatment in some clinical settings.

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.

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.

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.

Emerging issues in pediatric asthma: gaps in EPR-3 guidelines for infants and children

There are many complexities to the treatment of infants and children with recurrent wheezing and asthma. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's (NHLBI's) Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3), published in 2007, provides guidance to clinicians who care for infants and children with asthma. Since that time, many important clinical trials have further informed the evidence base available to clinicians. In this manuscript, new approaches to long-term therapy, intermittent fixed-dose and dynamic dose therapies, and emerging therapies for asthma are reviewed. Further, additional gaps in guideline-based care and areas for future research are discussed.

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.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Monitoring childhood asthma: web-based diaries and the asthma control test

BACKGROUND

Data from asthma diaries are frequently used as an end point in asthma studies; however, data on the validity of Web-based diaries are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

First, we examined the validity of a Web-based diary in assessing asthma control. Second, we determined the cutoff points for well-controlled asthma of the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) and the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and calculated the minimal important difference for both tests.

METHODS

Children with asthma, ages 4-18 years (n = 228) completed a 4-week Web-based diary, C-ACT, ACT, and an asthma-related quality-of-life questionnaire at baseline and after 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The completion rate of the Web-based diaries was 89%. The diary scores correlated strongly with C-ACT and ACT scores (r = -0.73, P < .01; r = -0.64, P < .01, respectively) and the changes in diary scores correlated well with changes in C-ACT and ACT scores. The best cutoff points for well-controlled asthma were C-ACT ≥ 22 and ACT ≥ 23. The minimal important differences were 1.9 (95% CI, 1.3-2.5) for ACT and 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-2.1) for C-ACT, and -0.7 points/d (95% CI, -1.1 to -0.4) for the Web-based diary.

CONCLUSIONS

Our Web-based diary was valid for recording asthma symptoms. Cutoff points of ≥22 (C-ACT) and ≥23 (ACT) define well-controlled asthma. We recommend a 2 C-ACT and ACT points difference as minimally important.

Asthma medication delivery: mists and myths

Asthma is usually treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and bronchodilators generated from pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI), dry powder inhalers (DPI), or nebulizers. The target areas for ICS and beta 2-agonists in the treatment of asthma are explained. Drug deposition not only depends on particle size, but also on inhalation manoeuvre. Myths regarding inhalation treatments lead to less than optimal use of these delivery systems. We discuss the origin of many of these myths and provide the background and evidence for rejecting them.

Are inhaled longacting β2 agonists detrimental to asthma?

Possible adverse effects of adrenergic bronchodilators in asthma have been the subject of discussion for more than half a century, with recent intense debate about the safety of longacting β agonists (LABAs). In this Debate, we consider the issues of bronchodilator and bronchoprotective tolerance resulting from the frequent use of bronchodilators, which is noted particularly with shortacting drugs, but has also been shown to occur quicker and to a greater extent with LABAs. Increased allergen responsiveness and masking allowing inflammation to increase, while symptoms and lung function remain apparently controlled, have also been observed. Studies in which LABAs were used as monotherapy were associated with increased mortality. However, several studies have shown the benefits of adding LABAs to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Meta-analyses of asthma clinical trials involving LABAs showed that, when given with mandatory ICS, LABAs were not associated with an increased risk of death, intubations, or hospital admission for exacerbations when compared with use of the same dose of ICS only. Withdrawal of LABA therapy once symptom control is achieved is often associated with subsequent loss of symptom control. When used for appropriate indications, LABAs should be combined with ICS in one inhaler so that monotherapy is not possible.

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.

Suicidal ideation and thought disorder associated with the formoterol component of combined asthma medication

Combination inhaled asthma medications containing corticosteroids and long-acting beta-adrenergic (LABA) agents are generally well tolerated, although a small minority of children receiving them may develop side-effects. Herein is reported a case of a 9-year-old boy who developed insomnia, pressured speech, agitation, and suicidal ideation within the 1st month after initiating formoterol + budesonide. He had not received oral glucocorticoids for >90 days. All symptoms resolved within 48 hr upon discontinuing formoterol while continuing budesonide. To our knowledge, this is the first report of childhood suicidal ideation strongly associated with use of a combination inhaled corticosteroid/LABA.

Childhood asthma: diagnosis and treatment

Many children suffer from recurrent coughing, wheezing and chest tightness. In preschool children one third of all children have these symptoms before the age of six, but only 40% of these wheezing preschoolers will continue to have asthma. In older school-aged children the majority of the children have asthma. Quality of life is affected by asthma control. Sleep disruption and exercised induced airflow limitation have a negative impact on participation in sports and social activities, and may influence family life. The goal of asthma therapy is to achieve asthma control, but only a limited number of patients are able to reach total control. This may be due to an incorrect diagnosis, co-morbidities or poor inhalation technique, but in the majority of cases non-adherence is the main reason for therapy failures. However, partnership with the parents and the child is important in order to set individually chosen goals of therapy and may be of help to improve control. Non-pharmacological measures aim at avoiding tobacco smoke, and when a child is sensitised, to avoid allergens. In pharmacological management international guidelines such as the GINA guideline and the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma are leading.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform®), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 μg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 μg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991.

A systematic review of long-acting β2-agonists versus higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) versus higher doses of ICS in children/adolescents with uncontrolled persistent asthma.

METHODS

Randomized, prospective, controlled trials published January 1996 to January 2012 with a minimum of 4 weeks of LABA+ICS versus higher doses of ICS were retrieved through Medline, Embase, Central, and manufacturer's databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids; secondary outcomes were the pulmonary function test (PEF), withdrawals during the treatment period, days without symptoms, use of rescue medication, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Nine studies (n = 1641 patients) met criteria for inclusion (7 compared LABA+ICS versus double ICS doses and 2 LABA+ICS versus higher than double ICS doses). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids between children receiving LABA+ICS and those receiving higher doses of ICS (odds ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.48-1.22, P = .25, I(2) = 16%). In the subgroup analysis, patients receiving LABA+ICS showed a decreased risk of asthma exacerbations compared with higher than twice ICS doses (odds ratio = 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.82, P = .007, I(2)= 0). Children treated with LABA+ICS had significantly higher PEF, less use of rescue medication, and higher short-term growth than those on higher ICS doses. There were no other significant differences in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant group differences between ICS+LABA and double doses of ICS in reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations but it did decrease the risk comparing to higher than double doses of ICS.

Assessment of controversial pediatric asthma management options using GRADE

OBJECTIVES

To develop explicit and transparent recommendations on controversial asthma management issues in children and to illustrate the usefulness of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

METHODS

Health care questions were formulated for 3 controversies in clinical practice: what is the most effective treatment in asthma not under control with standard-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; step 3), the use of leukotriene receptor antagonist for viral wheeze, and the role of extra fine particle aerosols. GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations after performing systematic literature searches. We provide evidence profiles and considerations about benefit and harm, preferences and values, and resource use, all of which played a role in formulating final recommendations.

RESULTS

By applying GRADE and focusing on outcomes that are important to patients and explicit other considerations, our recommendations differ from those in other international guidelines. We prefer to double the dose of ICS instead of adding a long-acting β-agonist in step 3; ICS instead of leukotriene receptor antagonist are the first choice in preschool wheeze, and extra fine particle ICS formulations are not first-line treatment in children with asthma. Recommendations are weak and based on low-quality evidence for critical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide systematically and transparently developed recommendations about controversial asthma management options. Using GRADE for guideline development may change recommendations, enhance guideline implementation, and define remaining research gaps.

Cost considerations of therapeutic options for children with asthma

Asthma is a prevalent health condition in children, with economic implications for the individual and their family, as well as for societies with nationalized healthcare. Pharmaceutical cost is the main driver of healthcare expenditure in asthma. Existent explicit guidelines are meant to guide asthma management across all age groups, but they are failing. Pharmacologic management of asthma consists of a stepwise treatment approach to achieve symptom control. Various studies suggest a significant number of medical practitioners are prescribing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combination inhalers inappropriately, including prescribing high doses of ICS without specialist consultation. ICS/LABA combination inhalers should only be used in persistent asthmatics, which account for approximately 5% of all children with asthma. Despite this, there is an increase in prescribing rates of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in the context of a decrease in the prevalence of asthma. Furthermore, there is inappropriate prescribing of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in children under 5 years of age, and initiation of relatively more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers in patients who have not previously been prescribed ICS. There is evidence to suggest that cost is a significant barrier to asthma management, especially for the more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers. Hence, prescribing cost-effective asthma medications appropriately is one of the most important strategies in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with asthma. It is incumbent on every medical practitioner to not prescribe expensive medications if not indicated, both for the sake of the patient and for society.

How do children and their caregivers perceive the benefits of inhaled asthma therapy?

OBJECTIVE

Although well reported in adults, there is relatively little data on how children with asthma and their parents describe their attitudes to the disease, expectations of therapy, and perception of treatment benefit. We investigated this to determine if they differed from reports by adults with asthma.

METHODS

We recruited families with an asthmatic child (4-11 years) who had recently been prescribed a change in treatment [starting inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy (ICS) or changing from ICS to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β(2)-agonist combination therapy (ICS/LABA)]. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the parents and the children if aged 7-11 years.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 parents and 13 children. All children on ICS/LABA had been changed from ICS monotherapy because of poor asthma control. Pediatric asthma had a significant impact on the whole family and both parents and children hoped the new medication would improve symptoms, increase their participation in physical activities, and decrease unscheduled visits to the GP (General Practitioner)/hospital. Positive effects of treatment change were reported by both parents and children, particularly in those changing from ICS to ICS/LABA. The most commonly reported benefits were reduced cough and wheeze, increased participation in sport or play activities, and reduced rescue medication use. These effects resulted in fewer visits to the GP/hospital and better attendance at school.

CONCLUSIONS

While asthma symptoms prevent adults and children from participating in different types of activities (e.g., school, employment), children and their parents report the same benefits as previously reported in adults with asthma.

Recent research on inhaled corticosteroids and growth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Description of recent studies evaluating growth and inhaled corticosteroids.

RECENT FINDINGS

Corticosteroids are the gold standard of asthma maintenance treatment, but effects on growth remain controversial. This is a review of recent research in this area, which has focused on medications causing less adrenal suppression as well as alternative regimens for chronic illness such as asthma.

SUMMARY

The use of newer corticosteroids and regimens shows short-term evidence of minimal growth effects without worsening of asthma control.

Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: double for nothing?

Two recent trials from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's asthma clinical trials networks raise a concern about using double the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a positive control arm in clinical trials of add-on therapy. The literature evaluating the response to doubling the dose of an ICS is briefly reviewed. The vast majority of studies do not demonstrate a significant positive benefit from doubling the dose of an ICS but do show improvement with 4-fold increases that is equal to or greater than that of add-on long-acting bronchodilators. It is recommended that doubling the dose of an ICS no longer be considered a positive comparator arm in clinical trials, although it might be beneficial in individual patients.

Safe use of long-acting β-agonists: what have we learnt?

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce symptoms, improve lung function and enhance overall asthma control. However, several studies have indicated an increased risk of asthma mortality and asthma-related serious adverse events and the FDA recently mandated restrictions to the use of LABAs in asthma.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights the clinical studies on which safety analyses pertaining to salmeterol and formoterol have been based and then focuses on recent meta-analyses of safety outcomes with and without consideration of concomitant ICS.

EXPERT OPINION

The phenomenon of masking of inflammation by LABA if ICS dose is insufficient underscores the potential for confounding in determining real safety risks. Under-treatment with ICS and differential dosing of ICS in many trials are major factors driving the LABA safety concern. The FDA meta-analysis, when stratified for mandatory ICS use, found no significant increase in the composite outcome of asthma mortality, intubations and hospitalizations. Add-on therapy with LABA is effective and safe if the dose of ICS is adequate to treat airway inflammation. LABA and ICS given in a single device will negate the possibility of LABA monotherapy which is contraindicated. The FDA has recommended that LABAs be withdrawn when control is achieved with combination therapy but recent evidence suggests this may result in loss of symptom control.