A randomized, open labeled, comparative study to assess the efficacy and safety of controller medications as add on to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β2 agonist in the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent asthma

Doxofylline as a steroid-sparing treatment in Mexican children with asthma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pilot study was to assess the efficacy of doxofylline as an ICS-sparing agent in the treatment of Mexican children with asthma.

METHODS

10-week, open-label, crossover, pilot study, we examined the steroid-sparing effect of doxofylline in Mexican children with asthma. Patients aged 6-16 years treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for at least 8 wk before enrollment were divided randomly into two groups at the baseline visit. Group A (n = 31) received doxofylline (18 mg/kg/day) plus standard-dose budesonide (D + SDB) for the first 4-week period followed by doxofylline plus reduced-dose budesonide (D + RDB) for the second 4-week period. Group B (n = 30) received D + RDB followed by D + SDB. Clinical outcomes assessed included lung function (forced expiratory volume; in 1 s, FEV1), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), asthma control, number of exacerbations and use of rescue medication (salbutamol).

RESULTS

It was shown that combined use of doxofylline and ICS may allow children with asthma to reduce their daily dose of ICS while maintaining lung function and improving asthma control (p = 0.008). There were few asthma exacerbations and only one patient required treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Rescue medication use decreased significantly in patients receiving D + SDB during the first 4-week period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that doxofylline may be a steroid-sparing treatment in asthma, but longer-term, controlled studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Optimizing asthma management: Role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Patients with asthma who are suboptimally responsive to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are frequently exposed to oral corticosteroids and high-dose ICS, which can lead to significant side effects. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in a subset of these patients. This review summarizes the results of key studies using LAMAs in patients with asthma aged 12 years or older. LAMA as an add-on treatment improved lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma across studies. The efficacy of LAMAs as an add-on to ICS was superior to that of placebo and ICS dose escalation and comparable with that of LABAs. LAMA plus ICS plus LABA provided modest improvements in bronchodilation and increased the time to first severe exacerbation versus ICS plus LABA. Single-inhaler triple therapy was associated with decreased health care resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness versus multiple inhalers. LAMAs were generally well tolerated; asthma exacerbations, bronchitis, and nasopharyngitis were common adverse events with LAMA in combination with ICS alone or ICS plus LABA. Thus, the overall evidence presented in this review supports the use of add-on LAMA treatment as a reasonable option in patients with asthma uncontrolled with ICS plus LABA or ICS alone.

Doxofylline for Pediatric Asthma Steps 1-4. Pediatric Asthma: New Role for an Old Drug

The panoply of anti-asthma drugs for children between 6 and 18 years is not limited to those reported in the guidelines. In this review, we will re-assess the role of doxofylline, a xanthine characterized by a much higher handling than that of theophylline, as add-on treatment in pediatric asthma grade 1-4. Ten studies evaluated doxofylline in the treatment of asthma of patients non-responsive to the first-line inhaled corticosteroids. Of these, two included children and one was exclusively pediatric. According to their results, doxofylline exerts a powerful bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activity, which can be exploited when the inhaled oral corticosteroids are not sufficient to get the desired effect of reducing symptoms. Unlike theophylline, doxofylline does not require blood testing. It can be administered together with or as an alternative to a series of other drugs considered in additional therapy.

The effect of doxofylline in asthma and COPD

Theophylline is still one of the most widely prescribed drugs for the treatment of asthma and COPD in developing countries because the majority of asthma and COPD medicines are largely unavailable and also because it is a cheap option. In any case, its anti-inflammatory effects and capacity to reverse corticosteroid resistance deserve consideration, but it can induce numerous side effects and drug-drug interactions and frequently requires measurement of drug levels in plasma. In order to overcome the problems posed by theophylline, other xanthines have been developed. Doxofylline is a newer generation xanthine with both bronchodilating and anti-inflammatory activities and for this reason it has been called "novofylline". It differs substantially from theophylline at the pharmacological level. Clinical studies have shown substantial differences between doxofylline and theophylline. In particular, efficacy/safety profile of doxofylline is better than that of theophylline.

Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: a meta-analysis

Background

Oral methylxanthines are effective drugs for the treatment of chronic obstructive respiratory disorders. The novel methylxanthine doxofylline, that has bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, is not affected by the major drawback of theophylline. Nowadays large-scale quantitative synthesis comparing the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline vs. theophylline in the treatment of asthma is still lacking. Therefore, we performed a quantitative synthesis to compare the efficacy/safety profile of doxofylline and theophylline in asthma.

Methods

A pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to assess the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline and placebo on the change in asthma events, risk of adverse events (AEs), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), and salbutamol use.

Results

Data obtained from 696 asthmatic patients were extracted from 4 randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2018. Doxofylline was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events (mean difference − 0.14, 95%CI -0.27 – 0.00) and risk of AEs (relative risk 0.76, 95%CI 0.59–0.99). Doxofylline was as effective as theophylline in improving FEV₁, and a trend of superiority (P = 0.058) was detected for doxofylline over theophylline with respect to the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rank of effectiveness was doxofylline>theophylline> > placebo, and the rank of safety was placebo>doxofylline> > theophylline.

Conclusions

Doxofylline is an effective and safe methylxanthine for the treatment of asthma, with an efficacy/safety profile greater than that of theophylline.

Trial registration

Meta-analysis registration: CRD42019119849.

Traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunctive therapy to oral montelukast for treating patients with chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of Ping Chuan Ke Li (PCKL) as an adjunctive therapy to oral montelukast compared with placebo plus montelukast for treating patients with chronic asthma (CAS).

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial involved 72 patients with CAS. They were randomly allocated to an intervention group or a control group, 36 subjects per group. Participants in the intervention group received PCKL and oral montelukast, while those in the control group received placebo and oral montelukast. The primary outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). The secondary outcomes included quality of life, measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Compared to placebo plus montelukast, PCKL and montelukast revealed greater efficacy in lung function, measured by FEV1 (P <.05), and quality of life, measured by the SGRQ scale (P <.05). Additionally, no significant differences were found in AEs between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Traditional Chinese medicine PCKL as an adjunctive therapy to oral montelukast alleviated the symptoms of CAS. Future studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to verify the efficacy and safety of PCKL plus montelukast in patients with CAS.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus theophylline for symptomatic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are widely used in combination with second controller medications in the management of asthma in adults and children. There lacks a systematic comparison between addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and theophylline to ICS. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference of the efficacy and safety profile of adding either LTRAs or theophylline to ICS in adults and children with symptomatic asthma.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to November 2014 were acquired through systematically searching and selected based on the established inclusion criteria for publications. The data extracted from the included studies were further analyzed by a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs, of which six recruited adults and two recruited children aged 5 to 14 years. The primary outcomes were changes in lung function from baseline, including forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF). Overall, addition of LTRAs led to significantly better morning PEF {mean difference (MD) 16.94 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.49-22.39] L/min, P<0.01} and FEV1 [MD 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03-0.15) L, P=0.005] as compared to addition of theophylline. There were no differences between the two treatments in terms of evening PEF, adverse events, rescue medication use and asthma exacerbation.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of LTRA and ICS leads to modestly greater improvement in lung function than the combination of theophylline and ICS in the treatment of symptomatic asthma. Long-term trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of these two therapies.

Assessment of various second-line medications in addition to inhaled corticosteroid in asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

Many patients with persistent asthma cannot achieve the treatment goal for asthma with a single controller medication. The aim of the present study was to assess lung function and rescue medication use in asthma patients receiving four different categories of drugs in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. Patients recruited to the study were randomized into four groups to receive budesonide with either formoterol, doxofylline, montelukast or tiotropium for a period of 3 months. Lung function (i.e. forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 )) and rescue medication use were determined at baseline and on Day 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 of treatment. A total of 297 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all groups. On Day 90, between-group differences showed that the improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for patients receiving budesonide + formoterol, followed by budesonide + montelukast and budesonide + doxofylline, and least for those receiving budesonide + tiotropium. Similarly, within- and between-group comparisons showed significant (P < 0.05) reductions in rescue medication use in all groups. However, the magnitude of the decrease was greater in the budesonide + formoterol group, followed by the budesonide + montelukast, budesonide + doxofylline and budesonide + tiotropium groups. Based on our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide with either montelukast or doxofylline was found to be better than budesonide + tiotropium in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a longer duration are likely to be useful.

Effect of vitamin D3 on mild to moderate persistent asthmatic patients: A randomized controlled pilot study

Background:

Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the bronchial airways. Well defined treatment options for asthma are very few. The role of vitamin D₃ on asthma is still baffling. Aim: We have examined the effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation in mild to moderate persistent asthma patients.

Materials and Methods:

We conducted an open labeled, randomized comparative trial in 48 asthma patients. The study duration was about 90 days. The study had a run-in-period of 2 weeks. At the end of run-in-period, patients were divided into two groups: Usual care group (n = 31) patients received budesonide and formoterol and intervention care group (n = 32) patients received vitamin D₃ supplementation along with their regular medicine.

Results:

The primary outcome of the study was to measure the improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). Patients in both groups had a significant improvement in FEV₁ at the end of the study. The mean difference in percentage predicted FEV₁ in usual care and intervention care group was 4.95 and 7.07 respectively.

Conclusion:

The study concluded that adjunctive therapy of vitamin D₃ is effective in asthma patients. The present study will be an evidence based report; however, future studies are warranted in longer duration of time to substantiate the present findings.

Pulmonary function assessment in mild to moderate persistent asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is no comparative study among asthma patients receiving first-line versus various second-line treatment regimens for mild to moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the pulmonary function in asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide in a pilot group.

METHODS

Patients were recruited as per the study criteria and randomly allocated to 4 groups to receive budesonide (400 µg) with formoterol (12 µg), doxofylline (400 mg), montelukast (10 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg) for a period of 3 months. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and rescue medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were recruited; among them, 123 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all the groups. At day 90, between-group difference revealed that improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) high for budesonide plus formoterol followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and, lastly, budesonide plus tiotropium. Similarly, within-group comparison revealed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in rescue medication use in all the groups. The intensity in decrease was more in budesonide plus formoterol group followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and budesonide plus tiotropium groups.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide plus doxofylline and budesonide plus montelukast was found to be better than budesonide plus tiotropium in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a larger sample size are likely to be useful.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an anti-leukotriene agent to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of anti-leukotriene agents and ICS to the use of the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS in children and adolescents with persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite the use of maintenance ICS. In addition, we wished to determine the characteristics of people or treatments, if any, that influenced the magnitude of response attributable to the addition of anti-leukotrienes.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), which were derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL; and the handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts, as well as the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. The search was conducted until January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children and adolescents, aged one to 18 years, with asthma, who remained symptomatic despite the use of a stable maintenance dose of ICS and in whom anti-leukotrienes were added to the ICS if they were compared to the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Five paediatric (parallel group or cross-over) trials met the inclusion criteria. We considered two (40%) trials to be at a low risk of bias. Four published trials, representing 559 children (aged ≥ six years) and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma, contributed data to the review. No trial enrolled preschoolers. All trials used montelukast as the anti-leukotriene agent administered for between four and 16 weeks. Three trials evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS compared to the same dose of ICS alone (step 3 versus step 2). No statistically significant group difference was observed in the only trial reporting participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over four weeks (N = 268 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.91). There was also no statistically significant difference in percentage change in FEV₁ (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) with mean difference (MD) 1.3 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.69) in this trial, but a significant group difference was observed in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR): N = 218 participants; MD 9.70 L/min (95% CI 1.27 to 18.13) and MD 10.70 (95% CI 2.41 to 18.99), respectively. One trial compared the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS to a higher-dose of ICS (step 3 versus step 3). No significant group difference was observed in this trial for participants with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over 16 weeks (N = 182 participants; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.25), nor was there any significant difference in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. There was no statistically significant group difference in withdrawals overall or because of any cause with either protocol. No trial explored the impact of adding anti-leukotrienes as a means to taper the dose of ICS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of anti-leukotrienes to ICS is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids or hospital admission compared to the same or an increased dose of ICS in children and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma. Although anti-leukotrienes have been licensed for use in children for over 10 years, the paucity of paediatric trials, the absence of data on preschoolers, and the variability in the reporting of relevant clinical outcomes considerably limit firm conclusions. At present, there is no firm evidence to support the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to ICS as a step-3 option in the therapeutic arsenal for children with uncontrolled asthma symptoms on low-dose ICS.

Efficacy and safety of cumaru syrup as complementary therapy in mild persistent asthma: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Amburana cearensis is a medicinal plant known as "cumaru". It is used in Northeast Brazil in the treatment of respiratory diseases. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, with the aim of evaluating the efficacy and safety of cumaru syrup as complementary therapy in mild persistent asthma. The study consisted of 3 phases, pre-treatment, treatment and post-treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was comparison of the changes reported by patients of the cumaru and placebo groups after treatment, using the "Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire" (AQLQ). The secondary outcome was the effect of cumaru syrup on lung function based on spirometry. The results showed that in the cumaru group, the proportion of patients who had global improvement in asthma symptoms was significantly greater (61.90%, P=0.0009) than in the placebo group (9.52%). Only the spirometric parameters Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed significant intergroup differences in post-treatment (P<0.05). The hematological and serum chemistry tests performed in the pre-treatment and post-treatment showed no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). Adverse events were reported by 3 patients (14.29%) in the cumaru group and 3 patients (14.29%) in the placebo group. All adverse events were considered non-serious and mild.

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV(1) (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 

How to set up a severe asthma service

Severe asthma affects 5-20% of the asthma population but is discordantly responsible for the major burden of illness and impairment to quality of life. Patients with severe asthma continue to experience ongoing symptoms despite maximal therapy. A severe asthma service provides a systematic approach to the management of the disease and aids in confirming the correct diagnosis, managing comorbid conditions that may mimic or aggravate asthma, and provides the environment to optimize treatment and asthma self-management skills and education. A severe asthma service is also the ideal environment for trialling add-on therapies and hence can improve patient outcomes and clinical practice. Within such a service there are many opportunities for training and research. In this article we describe the purpose of a severe asthma clinic, the necessary components of a service including staffing and facilities and the processes for trialling additional therapies used in the management of severe asthma.