High-dose inhaled fluticasone does not replace oral prednisolone in children with mild to moderate acute asthma

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations, or 'attacks', during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans sometimes advocate a short-term increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at the first sign of an exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of ICS as part of a patient-initiated action plan for the home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and handsearched abstracts to 20 December 2021. We also searched major trial registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated people with persistent asthma to take a blinded inhaler in the event of an exacerbation which either increased their daily dose of ICS or kept it stable (placebo).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We reassessed risk of bias for all studies at the result level using the revised risk of bias tool for RCTs (Risk of Bias 2), and employed the GRADE approach to assess our confidence in the synthesised effect estimates. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue oral steroids in the randomised population. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure in the subset who initiated the study inhaler (treated population), unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, serious and non-serious adverse events, and duration of exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added a new study that increased the number of people in the primary analysis from 1520 to 1774, and incorporates the most up-to-date methods to assess the likely impact of bias within the meta-analyses. The updated review now includes nine RCTs (1923 participants; seven parallel and two cross-over) conducted in Europe, North America, and Australasia and published between 1998 and 2018. Five studies evaluated adult populations (n = 1247; ≥ 15 years), and four studies evaluated child or adolescent populations (n = 676; < 15 years). All study participants had mild to moderate asthma. Studies varied in the dose of maintenance ICS, age, fold increase of ICS in the event of an exacerbation, criteria for initiating the study inhaler, and allowed medications. Approximately 50% of randomised participants initiated the study inhaler (range 23% to 100%), and the included studies reported treatment failure in a variety of ways, meaning assumptions were required to permit the combining of data. Participants randomised to increase their ICS dose at the first signs of an exacerbation had similar odds of needing rescue oral corticosteroids to those randomised to a placebo inhaler (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25; 8 studies; 1774 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We could draw no firm conclusions from subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, baseline dose, smoking history, and fold increase of ICS on the primary outcome. Results for the same outcome in the subset of participants who initiated the study inhaler were unchanged from the previous version, which provides a different point estimate with very low confidence due to heterogeneity, imprecision, and risk of bias (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; 7 studies; 766 participants; I2 = 42%; random-effects model). Confidence was reduced due to risk of bias and assumptions that had to be made to include study data in the intention-to-treat and treated-population analyses. Sensitivity analyses that tested the impact of assumptions made for synthesis and to exclude cross-over studies, studies at overall high risk of bias, and those with commercial funding did not change our conclusions. Pooled effects for unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, and duration of exacerbation made it very difficult to determine where the true effect may lie, and confidence was reduced by risk of bias. Point estimates for both serious and non-serious adverse events favoured keeping ICS stable, but imprecision and risk of bias due to missing data and outcome measurement and reporting reduced our confidence in the effects (serious adverse events: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; 2 studies; 394 participants; I² = 0%; non-serious adverse events: OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; 2 studies; 142 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from double-blind trials of adults and children with mild to moderate asthma suggests there is unlikely to be an important reduction in the need for oral steroids from increasing a patient's ICS dose at the first sign of an exacerbation. Other clinically important benefits and potential harms of increased doses of ICS compared with keeping the dose stable cannot be ruled out due to wide confidence intervals, risk of bias in the trials, and assumptions that had to be made for synthesis. Included studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 reflect evolving clinical practice and study methods, and the data do not support thorough investigation of effect modifiers such as baseline dose, fold increase, asthma severity and timing. The review does not include recent evidence from pragmatic, unblinded studies showing benefits of larger dose increases in those with poorly controlled asthma. A systematic review is warranted to examine the differences between the blinded and unblinded trials using robust methods for assessing risk of bias to present the most complete view of the evidence for decision makers.

Inhaled corticosteroids use in childhood respiratory diseases: an italian survey on pediatricians' prescription habits

Background

A national consensus document on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) use in childhood, produced by the main Italian pediatric scientific societies, has been recently released. The aim of this study was to gather information on the current pediatricians’ ICS prescription habits in Italy for the management of the most common pediatric respiratory diseases, namely allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma, preschool wheezing and laryngitis.

Methods

From the 1st October 2018 to the 31st January 2019 a link to an online questionnaire was sent monthly through a newsletter to the members of the Italian Society of Pediatrics. The questionnaire included 18 items on ICS use in the most common pediatric respiratory diseases. Data collection and reporting was based on STROBE Statement Checklist for cross-sectional studies.

Results

One thousand-two questionnaires were returned from primary care pediatricians (39.1%), hospital pediatricians (38.7%), private practicers (16.4%), university pediatricians (3.1%) and Pediatrics residents (2.7%). We found a good adherence to the international guidelines on AR, with prevalent use of oral antihistamine (60.6%) in the secretive phenotype and nasal ICS in the obstructive phenotype (64.8%). In asthma exacerbations ICS are not used in 53.4% of cases, but they are used at high dose in 27.9% and at low dose in 18.7% of cases. In intermittent asthma, ICS are not chosen as a daily controller therapy in 54.1% of cases, while they are chosen as a low dose daily therapy in 44.5% of cases (high dose in 1.4%). In children with persistent asthma, ICS are chosen as a daily low dose therapy in 67.4% of cases and as a daily high dose therapy in 31%. In the management of preschool wheezing, when a long-term treatment is needed, ICS are chosen both alone and in association with antileukotrienes in 71.4% of cases. Children affected by recurrent asthma exacerbations and wheezing are closely followed up, in particular by their primary care pediatricians. The preference for certain molecules in the treatment of different respiratory diseases also emerged.

Conclusions

Pediatricians’ ICS prescription habits in Italy should be improved, especially in the management of asthma. Future surveys on a more numerous sample will be useful to analyze differences in prescription habits on the basis of pediatricians’ work settings and geographical distribution.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13052-021-00988-8.

Granulocyte-targeted therapies for airway diseases

The average respiration rate for an adult is 12-20 breaths per minute, which constantly exposes the lungs to allergens and harmful particles. As a result, respiratory diseases, which includes asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute lower respiratory tract infections (LTRI), are a major cause of death worldwide. Although asthma, COPD and LTRI are distinctly different diseases with separate mechanisms of disease progression, they do share a common feature - airway inflammation with intense recruitment and activation of granulocytes and mast cells. Neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, and mast cells are crucial players in host defense against pathogens and maintenance of lung homeostasis. Upon contact with harmful particles, part of the pulmonary defense mechanism is to recruit these cells into the airways. Despite their protective nature, overactivation or accumulation of granulocytes and mast cells in the lungs results in unwanted chronic airway inflammation and damage. As such, understanding the bright and the dark side of these leukocytes in lung physiology paves the way for the development of therapies targeting this important mechanism of disease. Here we discuss the role of granulocytes in respiratory diseases and summarize therapeutic strategies focused on granulocyte recruitment and activation in the lungs.

Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Asthma Exacerbation in Children: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background:

Several studies showed that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be a potential treatment in acute asthma exacerbation in children. This study was an update meta-analysis on the roles of ICS in the management of acute asthma exacerbation in children presenting to the hospital.

Materials and Methods:

Published articles with key words of ICS for asthma exacerbation, asthma attacks, and acute asthma in children aged under 18 years in the hospital setting with outcome of hospital admission between 2009 and 2018 were enrolled. The databases used in this study were Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. Odds ratio of comparison between ICS and other treatments on hospital admissions was calculated.

Results:

There were 311 eligible studies met the searching criteria; seven eligible studies for the analysis; comprised of three meta-analysis and four added studies. The ICS had a significant reduction in hospital admission compared with placebo in overall with odds ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41–0.96) and in moderate-to-severe group with odds ratio of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05–0.51). Comparing with systemic corticosteroid (SC), ICS had significantly lower hospital admissions overall and in mild-to-moderate group with odds ratios of 0.63 and 0.26, respectively. The combination of ICS and SC had odds ratio of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.99) over SC in moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation.

Conclusions:

ICS significantly reduced hospital admission in asthma exacerbation in children. It may be used alone for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbation and combination with SC for moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation.

Inhaled Corticosteroids in Acute Asthma: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations are a common and important cause of attendance at emergency departments (ED) and subsequent hospital admissions. Despite previous reviews reporting that in acute settings the risk of hospital admission is reduced with the use of high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), this evidence has not changed clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the efficacy of ICS in the treatment of acute asthma in ED.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The primary outcome was hospital admission rates. The primary comparison was between administration of ICS in addition to systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and to SCS alone. Secondary comparisons were ICS alone compared with SCS alone and ICS compared with placebo.

RESULTS

There were 25 studies involving 2733 participants. For the primary comparison, ICS in addition to SCS reduced the risk of hospital admission compared with SCS; fixed-effects odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.73 (0.57-0.94). Lung function was poorly reported. There was moderate evidence of an improvement in clinical scores and vital signs with ICS in addition to SCS. Relatively few studies reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence that high doses of ICS, in addition to SCS, reduce the risk of hospital admission in ED treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations. Further research is required to determine their optimal role in both ED and outpatient settings.

Guideline on management of the acute asthma attack in children by Italian Society of Pediatrics

BACKGROUND

Acute asthma attack is a frequent condition in children. It is one of the most common reasons for emergency department (ED) visit and hospitalization. Appropriate care is fundamental, considering both the high prevalence of asthma in children, and its life-threatening risks. Italian Society of Pediatrics recently issued a guideline on the management of acute asthma attack in children over age 2, in ambulatory and emergency department settings.

METHODS

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted. A literature search was performed using the Cochrane Library and Medline/PubMed databases, retrieving studies in English or Italian and including children over age 2 year.

RESULTS

Inhaled ß2 agonists are the first line drugs for acute asthma attack in children. Ipratropium bromide should be added in moderate/severe attacks. Early use of systemic steroids is associated with reduced risk of ED visits and hospitalization. High doses of inhaled steroids should not replace systemic steroids. Aminophylline use should be avoided in mild/moderate attacks. Weak evidence supports its use in life-threatening attacks. Epinephrine should not be used in the treatment of acute asthma for its lower cost / benefit ratio, compared to β2 agonists. Intravenous magnesium solphate could be used in children with severe attacks and/or forced expiratory volume1 (FEV1) lower than 60% predicted, unresponsive to initial inhaled therapy. Heliox could be administered in life-threatening attacks. Leukotriene receptor antagonists are not recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

This Guideline is expected to be a useful resource in managing acute asthma attacks in children over age 2.

Infantile wheeze: rethinking dogma

Wheeze is a common symptom in young children and is usually associated with viral illnesses. It is a major source of morbidity and is responsible for a high consumption of healthcare and economic resources worldwide. A few children have a condition resembling classical asthma. Rarer specific conditions may have a wheezy component and should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Over the last half century, there have been many circular discussions about the best way of managing preschool wheeze. In general, intermittent wheezing should be treated with intermittent bronchodilator therapy, and a controller therapy should be prescribed for a young child with recurrent wheezing only if positively indicated, and only then if carefully monitored for efficacy. Good multidisciplinary support, attention to environmental exposition and education are essential in managing this common condition. This article analyses the pathophysiological basis of wheezing in infancy and critically discusses the evolution of the scientific progress over time in this unique field of respiratory medicine.

Publishing Trends in the Field of Pediatric Emergency Medicine From 2004 to 2013

OBJECTIVE

To identify publishing trends within the field of pediatric emergency medicine between 2004 and 2013.

METHODS

We conducted a MEDLINE search of pediatric emergency medicine articles, filtered by clinical trial, published between 2004 and 2013 in ten journals from the fields of pediatrics, emergency medicine, general medicine, and pediatric emergency medicine. Each article was classified by journal type, study design, results (positive or negative/equivocal), age/type of subjects, and major topic (based on the objective of the study). Articles were stratified by publication period (2004-2008 or 2009-2013) to analyze trends.

RESULTS

A total of 464 articles were analyzed. The majority of articles were described as randomized-controlled trials (47%) with negative/equivocal findings (70%). The most common major topics were pain management, asthma, sedation, bronchiolitis, resuscitation, simulation, and ultrasound. Over time, the percentage of articles published in pediatrics and pediatric emergency medicine journals increased (P = 0.0499) and the percentage for all study designs increased except for randomized controlled trials (P = 0.0089). There were no differences between the 2 publication periods when stratified by results, age/type of subjects, and major topic.

CONCLUSIONS

By identifying these trends, we hope to encourage researchers to perform studies in the field of pediatric emergency medicine where deficiencies lie and to guide pediatric health care professionals to where published, evidence-based studies can be found in the medical literature.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations or "attacks" during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans may advocate doubling the dose of inhaled steroids in the early stages of an asthma exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of a patient-initiated action plan for home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to March 2016. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared increased versus stable doses of ICS for home management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies of children or adults with persistent asthma who were receiving daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added three new studies including 419 participants to the review. In total, we identified eight RCTs, most of which were at low risk of bias, involving 1669 participants with mild to moderate asthma. We included three paediatric (n = 422) and five adult (n = 1247) studies; six were parallel-group trials and two had a cross-over design. All but one study followed participants for six months to one year. Allowed maintenance doses of ICS varied in adult and paediatric studies, as did use of concomitant medications and doses of ICS initiated during exacerbations. Investigators gave participants a study inhaler containing additional ICS or placebo to be started as part of an action plan for treatment of exacerbations.The odds of treatment failure, defined as the need for oral corticosteroids, were not significantly reduced among those randomised to increased ICS compared with those taking their usual stable maintenance dose (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.18; participants = 1520; studies = 7). When we analysed only people who actually took their study inhaler for an exacerbation, we found much variation between study results but the evidence did not show a significant benefit of increasing ICS dose (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; participants = 766; studies = 7). The odds of having an unscheduled physician visit (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.41; participants = 931; studies = 3) or acute visit (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.98; participants = 450; studies = 3) were not significantly reduced by an increased versus stable dose of ICS, and evidence was insufficient to permit assessment of impact on the duration of exacerbation; our ability to draw conclusions from these outcomes was limited by the number of studies reporting these events and by the number of events included in the analyses. The odds of serious events (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; participants = 394; studies = 2) and non-serious events, such as oral irritation, headaches and changes in appetite (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; participants = 142; studies = 2), were neither increased nor decreased significantly by increased versus stable doses of ICS during an exacerbation. Too few studies are available to allow firm conclusions on the basis of subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, doses used, smoking history and the fold increase of ICS on the magnitude of effect; yet, effect size appears similar in children and adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support increasing the dose of ICS as part of a self initiated action plan to treat exacerbations in adults and children with mild to moderate asthma. Increased ICS dose is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids for the exacerbation, or of having adverse events, compared with a stable ICS dose. Wide confidence intervals for several outcomes mean we cannot rule out possible benefits of this approach.

Pediatric Respiratory Emergencies

Respiratory emergencies are 1 of the most common reasons parents seek evaluation for the their children in the emergency department (ED) each year, and respiratory failure is the most common cause of cardiopulmonary arrest in pediatric patients. Whereas many respiratory illnesses are mild and self-limiting, others are life threatening and require prompt diagnosis and management. Therefore, it is imperative that emergency clinicians be able to promptly recognize and manage these illnesses. This article reviews ED diagnosis and management of foreign body aspiration, asthma exacerbation, epiglottitis, bronchiolitis, community-acquired pneumonia, and pertussis.

Update on the utility of corticosteroids in acute pediatric respiratory disorders

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids, delivered systemically and by inhalation, are widely used for the treatment of multiple acute respiratory illnesses in children. However, the level of evidence to support the utility of this therapy varies between these different acute respiratory illnesses.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence regarding the utility of corticosteroids in the management of common acute pediatric respiratory conditions and to highlights the controversies regarding their use.

METHODS

Literature search of manuscripts describing the evidence regarding the efficacy of corticosteroids (systemic and inhaled) in the management of: acute asthma exacerbation among school age children, acute episodic wheeze among preschool children, viral croup, and acute viral bronchiolitis.

RESULTS

Current evidence indicates that systemic corticosteroids provide benefits for the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations in school age children, mainly in the acute care setting. In addition, high dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy administered in the Emergency Department appears to have comparable effect for the prevention of asthma-related hospital admission as systemic corticosteroids in this age group. In contrast, most available studies have not shown benefit for systemic corticosteroids during acute wheezing episodes in preschool children. Systemic corticosteroids decrease symptoms and the rate of hospital admissions in patients with severe croup; however, corticosteroids have no role in the treatment of acute bronchiolitis and their use in this condition should be discouraged.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroids treatment response varies between the acute respiratory illnesses presented in this review. Future research should aim to fill the current gaps-of-knowledge regarding the utility this intervention such as the identification of specific wheezing phenotypes among preschool children which might benefit from systemic corticosteroids as a treatment for acute viral wheeze.

Nebulized fluticasone propionate, a viable alternative to systemic route in the management of childhood moderate asthma attack: A double-blind, double-dummy study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we compared the clinical and immunological efficacy of nebulized corticosteroid (CS) to systemic route during treatment of moderate asthma attack in children.

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, prospective study, 81 children aged 12 months to 16 years experiencing asthma attack randomized into two treatment groups to receive, either; nebulized fluticasone propionate (n = 39, 2000 mcg/day) or oral methylprednisolone (n = 41, 1 mg/kg/day). Pulmonary index scores (PIS) were assessed at admission and at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 24th, 48th hours, as well as, on day 7 and peak expiratory flow (PEF) at baseline and at the 7th day. Daily symptom and medication scores were recorded for all subjects. Immunological studies included phytohemagglutinin induced peripheral blood mononuclear cells culture supernatant for cytokine responses and CD4(+) CD25(+) FOXP3(+) T regulatory cell (T reg) percentage at baseline and day 7.

RESULTS

The changes in PIS and PEF were similar in both treatment groups, with a significant improvement in both values at the 7th day, when compared to baseline. In both groups, significant reductions in symptom and medication scores were observed during the treatment period with no significant difference between the groups. At day 7 of intervention, phytohemagglutinin induced IL-4 level was significantly decreased only in the nebulized group compared to baseline (p = 0.01). Evaluation of cytokine responses by means of fold increase (stimulated (S)/unstimulated (US) ratio) revealed a significant reduction in IL-4, IL-5 and IL-17 only in nebulized group (p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.02; respectively). The fold increase value of IL-5 was significantly lower at 7th day in nebulized group when compared to systemic one (p = 0.02). At 7th day, although in both treatment groups the percentage of T reg cells was suppressed, it remained significantly higher in the nebule one when compared to systemic route (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In the management of moderate acute asthma attack, nebulized CS (2000 mcg daily) was found to be as effective as systemic route with regard to clinical improvement. In addition, immunological parameters were more in favor of nebulized route which may imply a salutary effect of local CS usage.

Corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma

Asthma is a prevalent chronic disease of the respiratory system and acute asthma exacerbations are among the most common causes of presentation to the emergency department (ED) and admission to hospital particularly in children. Bronchial airways inflammation is the most prominent pathological feature of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), through their anti-inflammatory effects have been the mainstay of treatment of asthma for many years. Systemic and ICS are also used in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations. Several international asthma management guidelines recommend the use of systemic corticosteroids in the management of moderate to severe acute asthma early upon presentation to the ED. On the other hand, ICS use in the management acute asthma has been studied in different contexts with encouraging results in some and negative in others. This review sheds some light on the role of systemic and ICS in the management of acute asthma and discusses the current evidence behind their different ways of application particularly in relation to new developments in the field.

Budesonide nebulization added to systemic prednisolone in the treatment of acute asthma in children: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids, known to be effective as a maintenance medication in chronic asthma, have also been suggested as a therapy for acute asthma when given at high doses.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in children aged 2 to 12 years with moderate or severe acute asthma, as determined based on a clinical score of 5 to 15 points, where 15 is the most severe. We compared the addition of budesonide 1,500 μg vs placebo to standard acute asthma treatment, which included salbutamol, ipratropium bromide, and a single dose of prednisolone 2 mg/kg given at the beginning of therapy. The primary outcome was hospital admission rate within 4 h.

RESULTS

A total of 906 ED visits by children with moderate or severe acute asthma were evaluated. Seventy-five cases out of 458 (16.4%) in the budesonide group vs 82 of 448 (18.3%) in the placebo group were admitted (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.23; P=.38). However, among cases with high baseline clinical score (≥13), significantly fewer children were admitted in the budesonide group (27 of 76 [35.5%]) than in the placebo group (39 of 73 [53.4%]; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94; P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of budesonide nebulization did not decrease the admission rate of children with acute asthma overall. However, it may decrease the admission rate of children with severe acute asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01524198; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Switching from systemic steroids to ciclesonide restores the hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal axis

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of difficult asthma with oral corticosteroids (OCS) may suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

AIM

In this study we have checked if the substitution of OCS with very high doses of ciclesonide may restore the adrenal function without losing the control of the disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 5 patients with difficult, uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with OCS, inhaled and systemic glucocorticosteroids were replaced with very high doses of ciclesonide (1600-2400 µg/day). The symptoms of asthma and the lung function were assessed at baseline and on the 28(th), 56(th) and 70(th) day of treatment, whereas the levels of cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in the morning were measured at baseline and on the 28(th) and the 56(th) day of treatment.

RESULTS

In all patients, the control of asthma symptoms, measured with Asthma Control Test questionnaire, improved from the mean score of 9.4 to 19.8 in 70 days. In 4 subjects force expiratory volume in 1 s improved gradually through the entire study reaching a mean improvement of 585 ml in 70 days. The ACTH levels were normalized in 3 patients after 28 days of observation and in all patients after 56 days. The cortisol level was normalized in 4 patients after 28 days and in another subject after 56 days of treatment with ciclesonide.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from prednisone to very high doses of ciclesonide normalized the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis function and also improved the disease control and the lung function in these 5 patients with difficult asthma.

Determinants Of Oral corticosteroid Responsiveness in Wheezing Asthmatic Youth (DOORWAY): protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study of children with acute moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations

INTRODUCTION

Oral corticosteroids are the cornerstone of acute asthma management in the emergency department. Recent evidence has raised doubts about the efficacy of this treatment in preschool-aged children with viral-induced wheezing and in smoking adults. The aims of the study were to: (1) document the magnitude of response to oral corticosteroids in children presenting to the emergency department with moderate or severe asthma; (2) quantify potential determinants of response to corticosteroids and (3) explore the role of gene polymorphisms associated with the responsiveness to corticosteroids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The design is a prospective cohort study of 1008 children aged 1-17 years meeting a strict definition of asthma and presenting with a clinical score of ≥4 on the validated Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure. All children will receive standardised severity-specific treatment with prednisone/prednisolone and cointerventions (salbutamol with/without ipratropium bromide). Determinants, namely viral aetiology, environmental tobacco smoke and single nucleotide polymorphism, will be objectively documented. The primary efficacy endpoint is the failure of emergency department (ED) management within 72 h of the ED visit. Secondary endpoints include other measures of asthma severity and time to recovery within 7 days of the index visit. The study has 80% power for detecting a risk difference of 7.5% associated with each determinant from a baseline risk of 21%, at an α of 0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from all participating institutions. An impaired response to systemic steroids in certain subgroups will challenge the current standard of practice and call for the immediate search for better approaches. A potential host-environment interaction will broaden our understanding of corticosteroid responsiveness in children. Documentation of similar effectiveness of corticosteroids across determinants will provide the needed reassurance regarding current treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

Results will be disseminated at international conferences and manuscripts targeted at emergency physicians, paediatricians, geneticists and respirologists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02013076).

Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute asthma in children. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) against systemic corticosteroids (SC) in children consulting in emergency department (ED) or equivalent for asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

Electronic search in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and LILACS databases and other sources. Study selection criteria: children 2-18 years of age, consulting in ED or equivalent for asthma exacerbation, comparison between ICS and SC, randomized controlled trials.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

hospital admission rate, unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms, need of additional course of SC.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

improvement of lung function, length of stay in ED, clinical scores, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria (N = 797), published between 1995 and 2006. All used prednisolone as SC and budesonide, fluticasone, dexamethasone, and flunisolide were administered as ICS. No significant difference between ICS versus SC was found in terms of hospital admission (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.41-2.57), unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms (RR: 9.55; 95% CI: 0.53-170.52) nor for need of additional course of SC (RR: 1.45; 95% CI: 0.28-7.62). The change in % of predicted FEV1 at fourth hour was significantly higher for SC group, but there was no significant difference between both groups after this time. There was insufficient data to perform meta-analysis of length of stay during first consult in ED and of symptom scores. Vomiting was similar among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of a difference between ICS and SC in terms of hospital admission rates, unscheduled visits for asthma symptoms and need of additional course of SC in children consulting for asthma exacerbations.

Childhood asthma: a guide for pediatric emergency medicine providers

Pediatric asthma is a disease that is managed across outpatient physicians, hospitalists, critical care physicians, and emergency department (ED) physicians. Scoring systems may facilitate a rapid assessment of the child with asthma in the ED. Short-acting beta agonists are still the mainstay of therapy for acute exacerbations along with corticosteroids and ipratropium bromide. ED providers must also know the indications for noninvasive ventilation and intubation. Most patients can be treated and discharged from the ED after acute exacerbation, and should be given a plan for going home that provides educational material and emergency scenarios to help prevent future acute incidents.

Asthma update

Asthma continues to be one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits and a leading cause of hospitalization. Acute management involves severity-based treatment of bronchoconstriction and underlying airway inflammation. Optimal treatment has been defined and standardized through randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and consensus guidelines. Implementation of clinical practice guidelines may improve clinical, quality, and safety outcomes. Asthma morbidity is disproportionately high in poor, urban, and minority children. Children treated in emergency departments commonly have persistent chronic severity, significant morbidity, and infrequent follow-up and primary asthma care, and prescription of inhaled corticosteroids is appropriate.

Acute asthma exacerbations in childhood: risk factors, prevention and treatment

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease more appropriately seen as a syndrome rather than a single pathologic entity. Although it can remain quiescent for extended time periods, the inflammatory and remodeling processes affect the bronchial milieu and predispose to acute and occasionally severe clinical manifestations. The complexity underlying these episodes is enhanced during childhood, an era of ongoing alterations and maturation of key biological systems. In this review, the authors focus on such sudden-onset events, emphasizing on their diversity on the basis of the numerous asthma phenotypes.

Inhaled steroids for acute asthma following emergency department discharge

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department (ED) are frequently treated with inhaled beta(2)-agonists and systemic corticosteroids after discharge. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) following discharge may also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes after acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of ICS on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the ED. To quantify the effectiveness of ICS therapy on acute asthma following ED discharge, when used in addition to, or as a substitute for, systemic corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals and conference proceedings. In addition, primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts also were searched. The searches have been conducted up to September 2012

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and following ED discharge were treated with ICS therapy either in addition to, or as a substitute for, oral corticosteroids. Two review authors independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors, or confirmed by the study authors. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed effect model and heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were eligible for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus systemic corticosteroids versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to oral corticosteroid therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced; however, this was not statistically significant with the addition of ICS therapy (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02; 3 studies; N = 909). In addition, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores or adverse effects.Nine trials, involving a total of 1296 patients compared high-dose ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone for relapse rates (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 4 studies; N = 684), admissions to hospital, or in the secondary outcomes of beta(2)-agonist use, symptoms or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior and people with severe asthma were excluded from these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed.

Early use of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroid therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may also be beneficial in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We identified controlled clinical trials from the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of controlled trials. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The latest search was September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients presented to the ED or its equivalent with acute asthma, and were treated with ICS or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors. There were three different types of studies that were included in this review: 1) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with no systemic corticosteroids given to either treatment group, 2) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with systemic corticosteroids given to both treatment groups, and 3) studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroids. For the analysis, the first two types of studies were included as separate subgroups in the primary analysis (ICS vs. placebo), while the third type of study was included in the secondary analysis (ICS vs. systemic corticosteroid).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors if the authors were unable to verify the validity of extracted information. Missing data were obtained from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the paper. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analysis (13 paediatric, seven adult), with a total number of 1403 patients. Patients treated with ICS were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62; 12 studies; 960 patients) and heterogeneity (I(2) = 27%) was modest. This represents a reduction from 32 to 17 hospital admissions per 100 patients treated with ICS in comparison with placebo. Subgroup analysis of hospital admissions based on concomitant systemic corticosteroid use revealed that both subgroups indicated benefit from ICS in reducing hospital admissions (ICS and systemic corticosteroid versus systemic corticosteroid: OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 5 studies; N = 433; ICS versus placebo: OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 7 studies; N = 527). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the subgroup using ICS in addition to systemic steroids (I(2) = 52%). Patients receiving ICS demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flow (PEF: MD 7%; 95% CI 3% to 11%) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1): MD 6%; 95% CI 2% to 10%) at three to four hours post treatment). Only a small number of studies reported these outcomes such that they could be included in the meta-analysis and most of the studies in this comparison did not administer systemic corticosteroids to either treatment group. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects from ICS treatment with regard to tremor or nausea and vomiting. In the secondary analysis of studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroid alone, heterogeneity among the studies complicated pooling of data or drawing reliable conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICS therapy reduces hospital admissions in patients with acute asthma who are not treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids. They may also reduce admissions when they are used in addition to systemic corticosteroids; however, the most recent evidence is conflicting. There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma in addition to systemic corticosteroids. Also, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy can be used in place of systemic corticosteroid therapy when treating acute asthma. Further research is needed to clarify the most appropriate drug dosage and delivery device, and to define which patients are most likely to benefit from ICS therapy. Use of similar measures and reporting methods of lung function, and a common, validated, clinical score would be helpful in future versions of this meta-analysis.

Common pediatric respiratory emergencies

Pediatric respiratory illnesses are a huge burden to emergency departments worldwide. This article reviews the latest evidence in the epidemiology, assessment, management, and disposition of children presenting to the emergency department with asthma, croup, bronchiolitis, and pneumonia.

Progress in the management of childhood asthma

Asthma has become the most common chronic disease in childhood. Significant advances in epidemiological research as well as in therapy of pediatric asthma have been made over the past 2 decades. In this review, we look at certain aspects therapy of childhood asthma, both in the past and present. Literature review on allergen avoidance (including mites, cockroach and cat), intensive therapy with β(2)-agonists in acute asthma (administering via continuous nebulization and intravenous routes), a revisit of theophylline use and its action, the use of inhaled corticosteroids in various phases of childhood asthma and sublingual immunotherapy in asthma are examined. Recent facts and dilemmas of these treatments are identified along with expression of our opinions, particularly on points of childhood asthma in the Asia-Pacific, are made in this review.

Nebulized budesonide added to standard pediatric emergency department treatment of acute asthma: a randomized, double-blind trial

OBJECTIVES

The goal was to determine if adding inhaled budesonide to standard asthma therapy improves outcomes of pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute asthma.

METHODS

The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a tertiary care, urban pediatric ED. Patients 2 to 18 years of age with moderate to severe acute asthma were randomized to receive either a single 2-mg dose of budesonide inhalation suspension (BUD) or normal sterile saline (NSS) placebo, added to albuterol, ipratropium bromide (IB), and systemic corticosteroids (SCS). The primary outcome was the difference in median asthma scores between treatment groups at 2 hours. Secondary outcomes included differences in vital signs and hospitalization rates.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients were enrolled. Treatment groups had similar baseline demographics, asthma scores, and vital signs. A total of 169 patients (88 BUD, 81 NSS) were assessed for the primary outcome. No significant difference was found between groups in the change in median asthma score at 2 hours (BUD -3, NSS -3, p = 0.64). Vital signs at 2 hours were also similar between groups. Fifty-six children (62%) were admitted to the hospital in the BUD group and 55 (62%) in the NSS group (difference 0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -14% to 14%). Neither multivariate adjustment nor planned subgroup analysis by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) use prior to the ED significantly altered the results.

CONCLUSIONS

For children 2 to 18 years of age treated in the ED for acute asthma, a single 2-mg dose of budesonide added to standard therapy did not improve asthma severity scores or other short-term ED-based outcomes.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mcg (range 200 mcg to 795 mcg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mcg (range 1000 mcg to 2075 mcg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mcg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mcg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mg (range 200 mg to 795 mg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mg (range 1000 mg to 2075 mg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Management of acute asthma exacerbations in children

The management of acute asthma exacerbations in children remains controversial and the latest guidelines (Expert Panel Report [EPR]-3 2007 and the Global Initiative of Asthma 2008) leave several questions unanswered. This review summarizes the most up-to-date information on the practical prevention and control of asthma attacks in children, and describes the 20-year experience of a major tertiary asthma clinic with the administration of inhaled corticosteroids in this setting. The following subjects are discussed: the knowledge and skills required by the parents regarding asthma and its treatment, how to prevent or minimize exacerbations in asthmatic children, the drugs used in the treatment of exacerbations and their order of administration, and the steps to follow after discharge from the emergency department or after a severe asthma exacerbation. The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of acute asthma exacerbations in children, both at home and in the emergency department, is discussed in detail. The goal of asthma-management programs is to arm parents with the skills and knowledge to prevent, detect and successfully control most exacerbations of asthma in children at home.

Inhaled corticosteroids as rescue medication in asthma exacerbations in children

The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as rescue medication for asthma exacerbations in children is controversial. ICS have the important potential advantage of direct delivery to the airways, which substantially reduces the risk of the adverse systemic effects that may be associated with oral corticosteroids. Oral corticosteroids are still preferred for severe attacks. Five randomized, controlled studies performed at home and six performed in the emergency department indicated that ICS are at least as effective as the oral route. Our pediatric out-patient asthma clinic has been using ICS for asthma exacerbations for more than 25 years. The key elements to success are the administration of repetitive doses at least four-times higher than the maintenance dose and parental adherence to the treatment plan. This article reviews the findings in the literature favoring this approach and describes our methodology in detail.

Parent initiated prednisolone for acute asthma in children of school age: randomised controlled crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a short course of parent initiated oral prednisolone for acute asthma in children of school age.

DESIGN

Double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial in which episodes of asthma, rather than participants, were randomised to treatment.

SETTING

The Barwon region of Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 5-12 years with a history of recurrent episodes of acute asthma.

INTERVENTION

A short course of parent initiated treatment with prednisolone (1 mg/kg a day) or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the mean daytime symptom score over seven days. Secondary outcome measures were mean night time symptom score over seven days, use of health resources, and school absenteeism.

RESULTS

230 children were enrolled in the study. Over a three year period, 131 (57%) of the participants contributed a total of 308 episodes of asthma that required parent initiated treatment: 155 episodes were treated with parent initiated prednisolone and 153 with placebo. The mean daytime symptom score was 15% lower in episodes treated with prednisolone than in those treated with placebo (geometric mean ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P=0.023). Treatment with prednisolone was also associated with a 16% reduction in the night time symptom score (geometric mean ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00; P=0.050), a reduced risk of health resource use (odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86; P=0.010), and reduced school absenteeism (mean difference -0.4 days, 95% CI -0.8 to 0.0 days; P=0.045).

CONCLUSION

A short course of oral prednisolone initiated by parents when their child experiences an episode of acute asthma may reduce asthma symptoms, health resource use, and school absenteeism. However, the modest benefits of this strategy must be balanced against potential side effects of repeated short courses of an oral corticosteroid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 26232583.

High-dose inhaled flunisolide versus budesonide in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations in preschool-age children

The role of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma exacerbation is debated. We compared high doses of nebulized budesonide versus high doses of nebulized flunisolide, in association with a short-acting beta-2-agonist, in the treatment of moderate asthma exacerbation in preschool children. In this randomized, parallel group, simple blind study, 46 children aged between 3 and 5 years affected by an acute moderate asthma attack were treated with nebulized flunisolide (Group 1) 40 microg/kg twice daily for 7 days and then 20 microg/kg twice daily for 14 days, or with nebulized budesonide (Group 2) 0.5 mg twice daily for 7 days then 0.25 mg twice daily for 15 days. Inhaled salbutamol (MDI+ spacer - 200 microg 4 times daily) was administered during the first 3 days of the study and then as needed. At T0, T7 and T21 days, airway resistances were evaluated with the forced oscillation technique before and after inhalation of inhaled salbutamol (200 mcg). Parents recorded symptoms and drug use on a diary card. Forty children completed the study. Airway resistances were significantly reduced at T7 (p< 0.01 flunisolide; p< 0.05 budesonide) and T21 (p< 0.05 flunisolide; p< 0.05 budesonide) versus T0 in both groups, although at T7 the reduction occurred faster in group 1 than in group 2 (p<0.01). During the first 7 days of treatment, symptom scores decreased in both groups; however, the decrease was greater in group 1 (p< 0.05). High doses of inhaled flunisolide and budesonide are both effective in the management of moderate asthma exacerbations in pre-school-age children, but the flunisolide therapeutic effect was faster than budesonide.

Effectiveness of high repeated doses of inhaled budesonide or fluticasone in controlling acute asthma exacerbations in young children

OBJECTIVE

The role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations in children is controversial. This study compared the effect of inhaled budesonide and inhaled fluticasone in controlling acute asthma exacerbations in young children at home.

METHODS

In a quasi-randomized crossover design, children aged 5 months to 5 years with severe recurrent asthma episodes were treated either with inhaled budesonide 200 mcg or inhaled fluticasone 125 mcg delivered with a similar spacer. At the onset of asthma exacerbations, 2 puffs of inhaled terbutaline followed by inhaled budesonide or fluticasone was administered using one of the following treatment protocols: 1 4-day protocol for a relatively mild exacerbation; 2 8-day protocol for exacerbations that were more severe or uncontrolled by the 4-day protocol; and 3 8-day protocol + azithromycin for exacerbations uncontrolled by the 8-day protocol or possibly associated with infection with atypical agents. Children were followed for 2 months after each exacerbation. Good response was defined as the absence of asthma symptoms for at least 2 weeks from completion of treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred children were recruited: 36 were treated with budesonide, 21 with fluticasone, and 44 with both on different occasions. The groups were similar for preliminary data. Good response was noted in 87% of the budesonide group, 85% of the fluticasone group, and 86% of the budesonide/fluticasone group. By protocol, rates of good response were 84%, 83%, and 94% for the 4-day, 8-day, and 8-day+azithromycin treatment protocols, respectively; corresponding symptom-free periods after treatment were 4.0, 4.9, and 4.3 weeks. None of the children received oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

Acute asthma exacerbations in young children can be effectively controlled at home with the use of high repetitive doses of inhaled budesonide or inhaled fluticasone, initially together with beta(2)-agonists, given at the beginning of the attack, for a period of 4-8 days.

[Management of acute asthma exacerbations in pediatrics]

Despite the significant advances that have been produced in the management of asthma in the last few decades, crises, attacks, or asthma exacerbations (acute asthma) continue to be the most common cause of consultation in pediatric emergency units. Visits to these units and hospital admissions due to acute asthma represent three quarters of the direct costs due to this disease. Acute asthma is a medical emergency that should be rapidly diagnosed and treated. Evaluation of children with acute asthma exacerbations should consist of two phases: a static phase (determination of the severity of the crisis on admission) and a dynamic phase (treatment response). The present article provides an in-depth review and analysis of current pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments (oxygen, bronchodilators, corticosteroids - inhaled and systemic - aminophylline, magnesium sulfate, etc.) of acute asthma exacerbations and proposes management protocols for use in both primary care and emergency units.

Diagnosis and treatment of asthma in childhood: a PRACTALL consensus report

Asthma is the leading chronic disease among children in most industrialized countries. However, the evidence base on specific aspects of pediatric asthma, including therapeutic strategies, is limited and no recent international guidelines have focused exclusively on pediatric asthma. As a result, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology nominated expert teams to find a consensus to serve as a guideline for clinical practice in Europe as well as in North America. This consensus report recommends strategies that include pharmacological treatment, allergen and trigger avoidance and asthma education. The report is part of the PRACTALL initiative, which is endorsed by both academies.

Steroid therapy for asthma in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight studies that have contributed significantly to our current knowledge of inhaled glucocorticoids in childhood asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2006, three important studies were published that investigated whether inhaled glucocorticoid therapy, if started soon after the onset of asthma symptoms, could alter the subsequent course of the disease. Several studies focused on the comparative clinical efficacy of inhaled glucocorticoids to leukotriene receptor antagonists in children with mild to moderate asthma. Although the Expert Panel had recommended inhaled glucocorticoid therapy as the preferred long-term controller with persistent asthma, there were no specific studies comparing these two classes of long-term controller medications in children. Another topic of significant clinical interest was the comparative efficacy of inhaled glucocorticoid to systemic glucocorticoids in the treatment of acute asthma. The question was answered in a study published in children with mild to moderate acute asthma. Lastly, the safety of inhaled glucocorticoid therapy was also evaluated in preschool children.

SUMMARY

Inhaled glucocorticoids are the preferred long-term controller for initiating treatment of persistent asthma. Early intervention with inhaled glucocorticoids achieves symptom control but does not alter the natural history of asthma. Inhaled glucocorticoids are not as effective as systemic glucocorticoids for managing acute asthma exacerbations.